Federal Practitioner

Patients with type 2 or type 1 diabetes who stay in a blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL at least 70% of the time have the lowest rates of major adverse coronary events, severe hypoglycemic episodes, and microvascular events, according to a post hoc analysis of data collected from 5,774 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data collected by the DEVOTE trial showed that every additional 10% of the time that a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) spent in their target range for blood glucose linked with a significant 6% reduced rate for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

For every 10% increase in time in range (TIR), patients showed an average 10% drop in their incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes.
 

Increasing evidence from post hoc analyses

These findings confirmed a prior post hoc analysis of data collected in the DCCT trial (NCT00360815), which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, although those results showed significant relationships between increased TIR and decreased rates of retinopathy and microalbuminuria. For every 10% drop in TIR, retinopathy rose by 64% and microalbuminuria increased by 40%, according to a post hoc analysis of the DCCT data that Dr. Bergenstal helped run and was published in Diabetes Care.

“It’s becoming clear that time in range is an important metric for diabetes management, and our new findings and those previously reported with the DCCT data make it look like time in range is becoming a good marker for clinical outcomes as well,” said Dr. Bergenstal, an endocrinologist at the Park Nicollet Clinic in Minneapolis.

“It’s a new concept, getting time-in-range data,” said Dr. Bergenstal, who was a coauthor of recommendations from Diabetes Care that were made in 2019 by an expert panel organized by the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Congress. “We think this will be a good marker to keep glycemia in a safe range, and the results look positive.” Patients who stay in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at least 70% of the time generally have an hemoglobin A_1c of about 7%, which is what makes it a good target for patients and clinicians to focus on. Patients with a 50% TIR rate generally have an HbA_1c of about 8%.

But a TIR assessment can be more informative than HbA_1c, said the 2019 recommendations document. It called TIR assessments “appropriate and useful as clinical targets and outcome measurements that complement A1c for a wide range of people with diabetes.”
 

Data mining from DEVOTE

The analysis run by Dr. Bergenstal and his associates used data from 5,774 of the 7,637 patients enrolled in the DEVOTE trial, for whom adequate longitudinal blood glucose data were available to derive and track TIR. DEVOTE had the primary aim of comparing two different types of insulin in patients with T2D, according to its explanation in the New England Journal of Medicine. The DEVOTE patients did not undergo routine continuous blood glucose monitoring, so derivation of TIR was the only option with the dataset, Dr. Bergenstal said. “We’re trying to get continuous blood monitoring into T2D trials,” he said.

The post hoc analysis showed that, during the study’s follow-up of just under 2 years, patients who maintained a derived TIR of 70%-100% had about a 6% MACE rate, which peaked at nearly twice that in patients whose TIR was 30% or less. The analysis showed a roughly positive linear relationship between TIR and MACE rates across the range of TIR values. In an adjusted analysis, patients with at least a 70% TIR had a significant 31% lower rate of MACE events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less.

A second analysis that looked for the association between TIR and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes showed a somewhat similar positive relationship, with incidence rates of severe hypoglycemia episodes of about 4%-5% among patients with a TIR of 70% or greater, and a rate of about 7% in patients with a TIR of 30% or less, spiking to 14% among patients with a TIR of 10% or less. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 46% lower rate of severe hypoglycemic events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less. This finding belies a common misconception that the tighter glycemic control that produces a higher TIR will lead to increased episodes of severe hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergenstal noted.

He also reported less extensive data on microvascular events. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 40% cut in these events compared with patients with 50% or less TIR.

DEVOTE was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bergenstal has had financial relationships with Novo Nordisk and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergenstal R et al. EASD 2020, abstract 159.

Patients with type 2 or type 1 diabetes who stay in a blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL at least 70% of the time have the lowest rates of major adverse coronary events, severe hypoglycemic episodes, and microvascular events, according to a post hoc analysis of data collected from 5,774 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data collected by the DEVOTE trial showed that every additional 10% of the time that a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) spent in their target range for blood glucose linked with a significant 6% reduced rate for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

For every 10% increase in time in range (TIR), patients showed an average 10% drop in their incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes.
 

Increasing evidence from post hoc analyses

These findings confirmed a prior post hoc analysis of data collected in the DCCT trial (NCT00360815), which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, although those results showed significant relationships between increased TIR and decreased rates of retinopathy and microalbuminuria. For every 10% drop in TIR, retinopathy rose by 64% and microalbuminuria increased by 40%, according to a post hoc analysis of the DCCT data that Dr. Bergenstal helped run and was published in Diabetes Care.

“It’s becoming clear that time in range is an important metric for diabetes management, and our new findings and those previously reported with the DCCT data make it look like time in range is becoming a good marker for clinical outcomes as well,” said Dr. Bergenstal, an endocrinologist at the Park Nicollet Clinic in Minneapolis.

“It’s a new concept, getting time-in-range data,” said Dr. Bergenstal, who was a coauthor of recommendations from Diabetes Care that were made in 2019 by an expert panel organized by the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Congress. “We think this will be a good marker to keep glycemia in a safe range, and the results look positive.” Patients who stay in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at least 70% of the time generally have an hemoglobin A_1c of about 7%, which is what makes it a good target for patients and clinicians to focus on. Patients with a 50% TIR rate generally have an HbA_1c of about 8%.

But a TIR assessment can be more informative than HbA_1c, said the 2019 recommendations document. It called TIR assessments “appropriate and useful as clinical targets and outcome measurements that complement A1c for a wide range of people with diabetes.”
 

Data mining from DEVOTE

The analysis run by Dr. Bergenstal and his associates used data from 5,774 of the 7,637 patients enrolled in the DEVOTE trial, for whom adequate longitudinal blood glucose data were available to derive and track TIR. DEVOTE had the primary aim of comparing two different types of insulin in patients with T2D, according to its explanation in the New England Journal of Medicine. The DEVOTE patients did not undergo routine continuous blood glucose monitoring, so derivation of TIR was the only option with the dataset, Dr. Bergenstal said. “We’re trying to get continuous blood monitoring into T2D trials,” he said.

The post hoc analysis showed that, during the study’s follow-up of just under 2 years, patients who maintained a derived TIR of 70%-100% had about a 6% MACE rate, which peaked at nearly twice that in patients whose TIR was 30% or less. The analysis showed a roughly positive linear relationship between TIR and MACE rates across the range of TIR values. In an adjusted analysis, patients with at least a 70% TIR had a significant 31% lower rate of MACE events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less.

A second analysis that looked for the association between TIR and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes showed a somewhat similar positive relationship, with incidence rates of severe hypoglycemia episodes of about 4%-5% among patients with a TIR of 70% or greater, and a rate of about 7% in patients with a TIR of 30% or less, spiking to 14% among patients with a TIR of 10% or less. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 46% lower rate of severe hypoglycemic events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less. This finding belies a common misconception that the tighter glycemic control that produces a higher TIR will lead to increased episodes of severe hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergenstal noted.

He also reported less extensive data on microvascular events. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 40% cut in these events compared with patients with 50% or less TIR.

DEVOTE was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bergenstal has had financial relationships with Novo Nordisk and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergenstal R et al. EASD 2020, abstract 159.

Patients with type 2 or type 1 diabetes who stay in a blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL at least 70% of the time have the lowest rates of major adverse coronary events, severe hypoglycemic episodes, and microvascular events, according to a post hoc analysis of data collected from 5,774 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data collected by the DEVOTE trial showed that every additional 10% of the time that a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) spent in their target range for blood glucose linked with a significant 6% reduced rate for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

For every 10% increase in time in range (TIR), patients showed an average 10% drop in their incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes.
 

Increasing evidence from post hoc analyses

These findings confirmed a prior post hoc analysis of data collected in the DCCT trial (NCT00360815), which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, although those results showed significant relationships between increased TIR and decreased rates of retinopathy and microalbuminuria. For every 10% drop in TIR, retinopathy rose by 64% and microalbuminuria increased by 40%, according to a post hoc analysis of the DCCT data that Dr. Bergenstal helped run and was published in Diabetes Care.

“It’s becoming clear that time in range is an important metric for diabetes management, and our new findings and those previously reported with the DCCT data make it look like time in range is becoming a good marker for clinical outcomes as well,” said Dr. Bergenstal, an endocrinologist at the Park Nicollet Clinic in Minneapolis.

“It’s a new concept, getting time-in-range data,” said Dr. Bergenstal, who was a coauthor of recommendations from Diabetes Care that were made in 2019 by an expert panel organized by the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Congress. “We think this will be a good marker to keep glycemia in a safe range, and the results look positive.” Patients who stay in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at least 70% of the time generally have an hemoglobin A_1c of about 7%, which is what makes it a good target for patients and clinicians to focus on. Patients with a 50% TIR rate generally have an HbA_1c of about 8%.

But a TIR assessment can be more informative than HbA_1c, said the 2019 recommendations document. It called TIR assessments “appropriate and useful as clinical targets and outcome measurements that complement A1c for a wide range of people with diabetes.”
 

Data mining from DEVOTE

The analysis run by Dr. Bergenstal and his associates used data from 5,774 of the 7,637 patients enrolled in the DEVOTE trial, for whom adequate longitudinal blood glucose data were available to derive and track TIR. DEVOTE had the primary aim of comparing two different types of insulin in patients with T2D, according to its explanation in the New England Journal of Medicine. The DEVOTE patients did not undergo routine continuous blood glucose monitoring, so derivation of TIR was the only option with the dataset, Dr. Bergenstal said. “We’re trying to get continuous blood monitoring into T2D trials,” he said.

The post hoc analysis showed that, during the study’s follow-up of just under 2 years, patients who maintained a derived TIR of 70%-100% had about a 6% MACE rate, which peaked at nearly twice that in patients whose TIR was 30% or less. The analysis showed a roughly positive linear relationship between TIR and MACE rates across the range of TIR values. In an adjusted analysis, patients with at least a 70% TIR had a significant 31% lower rate of MACE events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less.

A second analysis that looked for the association between TIR and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes showed a somewhat similar positive relationship, with incidence rates of severe hypoglycemia episodes of about 4%-5% among patients with a TIR of 70% or greater, and a rate of about 7% in patients with a TIR of 30% or less, spiking to 14% among patients with a TIR of 10% or less. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 46% lower rate of severe hypoglycemic events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less. This finding belies a common misconception that the tighter glycemic control that produces a higher TIR will lead to increased episodes of severe hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergenstal noted.

He also reported less extensive data on microvascular events. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 40% cut in these events compared with patients with 50% or less TIR.

DEVOTE was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bergenstal has had financial relationships with Novo Nordisk and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergenstal R et al. EASD 2020, abstract 159.

Type 2 diabetes patients could lower their risk for death from any cause by up to a third by exercising at a moderate to high level or by cycling, according to data from two studies reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Yun-Ju Lai, MD, and colleagues from the Puli branch of Taichung Veterans General Hospital in Nantou, Taiwan, found that persons with type 2 diabetes who exercised at moderate to high intensity had a 25%-32% decreased risk for death, compared with those who did not exercise.

In a separate study, Mathias Ried-Larsen, MSc, PhD, group leader at the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and associates found that cycling was associated with a 25%-31% decreased risk for all-cause death compared to no cycling, and that cycling also reduced cardiovascular mortality.
 

Results fit with ADA recommendations

“There is really nothing surprising about these results as others have shown that regular participation in physical activity lowers both overall mortality rates and morbidity,” commented Sheri Colberg-Ochs, PhD, professor emerita in exercise science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., in an interview.

“Regular exercise participation lowers the risk of mortality in almost all populations with many different health conditions. It is not specific to people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs said. “These data add further support to the ADA [American Diabetes Association] recommendations by again suggesting that being more active leads to many health benefits for people with type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Colberg-Ochs, who was not involved in either study, is recognized by the ADA as an Outstanding Educator in Diabetes. She was also involved in writing the ADA’s position statement on physical activity/exercise in diabetes, which advocate that adults with type 2 diabetes should reduce sedentary time and undertake both aerobic and resistance exercise training to help optimize their glycemic and general health outcomes.
 

Asian population understudied

In an interview Dr. Lai acknowledged that epidemiologic studies had shown that exercise reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes. “However, the dose of exercise capacity for reducing mortality risk in people with type 2 diabetes was not yet well investigated, especially in the Asian population.”

Dr. Lai and colleagues analyzed data on 4,859 subjects drawn from two Taiwanese databases – the National Health Interview Survey and the National Health Insurance research database – to study what effect exercise “capacity” had on the risk for death in those with type 2 diabetes.

“Information about physical activity during leisure time was collected by asking the questions: ‘How often do you exercise every week? What kind of exercise do you do? How long do you do the exercise?’, Dr. Lai said. “We included nearly all kinds of exercise in the analysis, such as jogging, swimming, walking, dancing, riding, and so on.”

Each exercise had an activity intensity code expressed as kilocalories per minute. This was used to determine the exercise “capacity” by multiplying it by how frequently the exercise was performed per week and for how long each time.

“I don’t think ‘capacity’ is the right word to use here. The equation they used describes their exercise ‘volume,’ not their capacity. Self-reported exercise is notoriously inaccurate,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs observed. Furthermore, “just asking people how much they exercise and at what intensity [without using a validated exercise questionnaire] gives questionable results.”

The study’s findings, however, were clear: Those who exercised at a higher level had a significantly decreased risk for all-cause mortality than did those with no exercise habits. The hazard ratio for death by any cause was 0.75 for those who undertook a moderate level of exercise, burning 0-800 kcal per week. Exercising at a higher level burned more than 800 kcal had a HR of 0.68. A significant (P < .01) trend in favor of more exercise was noted.
 

Cycling reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality

In their prospective cohort study, Dr. Ried-Larsen and associates took a more specific look at the effects of exercise on mortality in diabetes by studying a single exercise: cycling. They sampled data on more than 5,000 people collected as part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. First, they identified participants with diabetes – although they couldn’t distinguish type 1 from type 2 forms because this was self-reported or obtained from registries. They then identified those who reported cycling at their baseline assessment and those who reported a change in cycling habits at their second examination around 5 years later.

At baseline, 38% of participants reported that they cycled every week. The mean age was 56 years, diabetes duration was 8 years, one-fifth were smokers, and the average body mass index was 29 kg/m².

Participants who reported cycling up to 1 hour every week at baseline had a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those who did not cycle. The biggest reduction (31%) in all-cause mortality was seen for cycling 2.5-5 hours a week; cycling for 1-2.5 hours, and for more than 5 hours, yielded 23% and 24% risk reductions, respectively.

A reverse J–shaped relationship between cycling duration and reduction in all-cause mortality was seen, Dr. Ried-Larsen noted during a live oral session at the virtual meeting. “The maximum benefit [was at] around 5 hours per week, and the benefits persisted until around 9 hours per week.” Adjustment for the prevalence of stroke, MI, cancer, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and central obesity did not alter the findings.

“The direction of the association was the same for cardiovascular mortality as all-cause mortality, although a bit weaker, with the maximum benefit being around 4 hours per week, and that persisted up until around 8 hours per week,” Dr. Ried-Larsen said.

The benefits of cycling on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lost, however, if those who cycled at baseline stopped by the second examination. Those who did not cycle at the first but did at the second examination got a benefit on both, as did those who continued cycling.

“Cycling is among one of the preferred activities for diabetes patients, so it actually may help them to achieve the recommend level of physical activity,” Dr. Ried-Larsen said.
 

Tailored exercise program important

Advice for exercise “should be tailored to the individual and based on starting fitness levels and activity levels,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs recommended.

“Those who are the most sedentary and the least fit have the most to gain from doing any activity. They should be advised to start out slowly and progress slowly with both aerobic activities and some resistance training,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs said.

She added: “In addition, individuals over 40 should engage in regular balance training, and all individuals should do some flexibility exercises.”

The studies received no commercial funding and all those mentioned in this article had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lai Y-J et al. EASD 2020, Poster presentation 267; Ried-Larsen M et al. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 194.

Type 2 diabetes patients could lower their risk for death from any cause by up to a third by exercising at a moderate to high level or by cycling, according to data from two studies reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Yun-Ju Lai, MD, and colleagues from the Puli branch of Taichung Veterans General Hospital in Nantou, Taiwan, found that persons with type 2 diabetes who exercised at moderate to high intensity had a 25%-32% decreased risk for death, compared with those who did not exercise.

In a separate study, Mathias Ried-Larsen, MSc, PhD, group leader at the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and associates found that cycling was associated with a 25%-31% decreased risk for all-cause death compared to no cycling, and that cycling also reduced cardiovascular mortality.
 

Results fit with ADA recommendations

“There is really nothing surprising about these results as others have shown that regular participation in physical activity lowers both overall mortality rates and morbidity,” commented Sheri Colberg-Ochs, PhD, professor emerita in exercise science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., in an interview.

“Regular exercise participation lowers the risk of mortality in almost all populations with many different health conditions. It is not specific to people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs said. “These data add further support to the ADA [American Diabetes Association] recommendations by again suggesting that being more active leads to many health benefits for people with type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Colberg-Ochs, who was not involved in either study, is recognized by the ADA as an Outstanding Educator in Diabetes. She was also involved in writing the ADA’s position statement on physical activity/exercise in diabetes, which advocate that adults with type 2 diabetes should reduce sedentary time and undertake both aerobic and resistance exercise training to help optimize their glycemic and general health outcomes.
 

Asian population understudied

In an interview Dr. Lai acknowledged that epidemiologic studies had shown that exercise reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes. “However, the dose of exercise capacity for reducing mortality risk in people with type 2 diabetes was not yet well investigated, especially in the Asian population.”

Dr. Lai and colleagues analyzed data on 4,859 subjects drawn from two Taiwanese databases – the National Health Interview Survey and the National Health Insurance research database – to study what effect exercise “capacity” had on the risk for death in those with type 2 diabetes.

“Information about physical activity during leisure time was collected by asking the questions: ‘How often do you exercise every week? What kind of exercise do you do? How long do you do the exercise?’, Dr. Lai said. “We included nearly all kinds of exercise in the analysis, such as jogging, swimming, walking, dancing, riding, and so on.”

Each exercise had an activity intensity code expressed as kilocalories per minute. This was used to determine the exercise “capacity” by multiplying it by how frequently the exercise was performed per week and for how long each time.

“I don’t think ‘capacity’ is the right word to use here. The equation they used describes their exercise ‘volume,’ not their capacity. Self-reported exercise is notoriously inaccurate,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs observed. Furthermore, “just asking people how much they exercise and at what intensity [without using a validated exercise questionnaire] gives questionable results.”

The study’s findings, however, were clear: Those who exercised at a higher level had a significantly decreased risk for all-cause mortality than did those with no exercise habits. The hazard ratio for death by any cause was 0.75 for those who undertook a moderate level of exercise, burning 0-800 kcal per week. Exercising at a higher level burned more than 800 kcal had a HR of 0.68. A significant (P < .01) trend in favor of more exercise was noted.
 

Cycling reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality

In their prospective cohort study, Dr. Ried-Larsen and associates took a more specific look at the effects of exercise on mortality in diabetes by studying a single exercise: cycling. They sampled data on more than 5,000 people collected as part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. First, they identified participants with diabetes – although they couldn’t distinguish type 1 from type 2 forms because this was self-reported or obtained from registries. They then identified those who reported cycling at their baseline assessment and those who reported a change in cycling habits at their second examination around 5 years later.

At baseline, 38% of participants reported that they cycled every week. The mean age was 56 years, diabetes duration was 8 years, one-fifth were smokers, and the average body mass index was 29 kg/m².

Participants who reported cycling up to 1 hour every week at baseline had a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those who did not cycle. The biggest reduction (31%) in all-cause mortality was seen for cycling 2.5-5 hours a week; cycling for 1-2.5 hours, and for more than 5 hours, yielded 23% and 24% risk reductions, respectively.

A reverse J–shaped relationship between cycling duration and reduction in all-cause mortality was seen, Dr. Ried-Larsen noted during a live oral session at the virtual meeting. “The maximum benefit [was at] around 5 hours per week, and the benefits persisted until around 9 hours per week.” Adjustment for the prevalence of stroke, MI, cancer, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and central obesity did not alter the findings.

“The direction of the association was the same for cardiovascular mortality as all-cause mortality, although a bit weaker, with the maximum benefit being around 4 hours per week, and that persisted up until around 8 hours per week,” Dr. Ried-Larsen said.

The benefits of cycling on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lost, however, if those who cycled at baseline stopped by the second examination. Those who did not cycle at the first but did at the second examination got a benefit on both, as did those who continued cycling.

“Cycling is among one of the preferred activities for diabetes patients, so it actually may help them to achieve the recommend level of physical activity,” Dr. Ried-Larsen said.
 

Tailored exercise program important

Advice for exercise “should be tailored to the individual and based on starting fitness levels and activity levels,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs recommended.

“Those who are the most sedentary and the least fit have the most to gain from doing any activity. They should be advised to start out slowly and progress slowly with both aerobic activities and some resistance training,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs said.

She added: “In addition, individuals over 40 should engage in regular balance training, and all individuals should do some flexibility exercises.”

The studies received no commercial funding and all those mentioned in this article had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lai Y-J et al. EASD 2020, Poster presentation 267; Ried-Larsen M et al. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 194.

Type 2 diabetes patients could lower their risk for death from any cause by up to a third by exercising at a moderate to high level or by cycling, according to data from two studies reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Yun-Ju Lai, MD, and colleagues from the Puli branch of Taichung Veterans General Hospital in Nantou, Taiwan, found that persons with type 2 diabetes who exercised at moderate to high intensity had a 25%-32% decreased risk for death, compared with those who did not exercise.

In a separate study, Mathias Ried-Larsen, MSc, PhD, group leader at the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and associates found that cycling was associated with a 25%-31% decreased risk for all-cause death compared to no cycling, and that cycling also reduced cardiovascular mortality.
 

Results fit with ADA recommendations

“There is really nothing surprising about these results as others have shown that regular participation in physical activity lowers both overall mortality rates and morbidity,” commented Sheri Colberg-Ochs, PhD, professor emerita in exercise science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., in an interview.

“Regular exercise participation lowers the risk of mortality in almost all populations with many different health conditions. It is not specific to people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs said. “These data add further support to the ADA [American Diabetes Association] recommendations by again suggesting that being more active leads to many health benefits for people with type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Colberg-Ochs, who was not involved in either study, is recognized by the ADA as an Outstanding Educator in Diabetes. She was also involved in writing the ADA’s position statement on physical activity/exercise in diabetes, which advocate that adults with type 2 diabetes should reduce sedentary time and undertake both aerobic and resistance exercise training to help optimize their glycemic and general health outcomes.
 

Asian population understudied

In an interview Dr. Lai acknowledged that epidemiologic studies had shown that exercise reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes. “However, the dose of exercise capacity for reducing mortality risk in people with type 2 diabetes was not yet well investigated, especially in the Asian population.”

Dr. Lai and colleagues analyzed data on 4,859 subjects drawn from two Taiwanese databases – the National Health Interview Survey and the National Health Insurance research database – to study what effect exercise “capacity” had on the risk for death in those with type 2 diabetes.

“Information about physical activity during leisure time was collected by asking the questions: ‘How often do you exercise every week? What kind of exercise do you do? How long do you do the exercise?’, Dr. Lai said. “We included nearly all kinds of exercise in the analysis, such as jogging, swimming, walking, dancing, riding, and so on.”

Each exercise had an activity intensity code expressed as kilocalories per minute. This was used to determine the exercise “capacity” by multiplying it by how frequently the exercise was performed per week and for how long each time.

“I don’t think ‘capacity’ is the right word to use here. The equation they used describes their exercise ‘volume,’ not their capacity. Self-reported exercise is notoriously inaccurate,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs observed. Furthermore, “just asking people how much they exercise and at what intensity [without using a validated exercise questionnaire] gives questionable results.”

The study’s findings, however, were clear: Those who exercised at a higher level had a significantly decreased risk for all-cause mortality than did those with no exercise habits. The hazard ratio for death by any cause was 0.75 for those who undertook a moderate level of exercise, burning 0-800 kcal per week. Exercising at a higher level burned more than 800 kcal had a HR of 0.68. A significant (P < .01) trend in favor of more exercise was noted.
 

Cycling reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality

In their prospective cohort study, Dr. Ried-Larsen and associates took a more specific look at the effects of exercise on mortality in diabetes by studying a single exercise: cycling. They sampled data on more than 5,000 people collected as part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. First, they identified participants with diabetes – although they couldn’t distinguish type 1 from type 2 forms because this was self-reported or obtained from registries. They then identified those who reported cycling at their baseline assessment and those who reported a change in cycling habits at their second examination around 5 years later.

At baseline, 38% of participants reported that they cycled every week. The mean age was 56 years, diabetes duration was 8 years, one-fifth were smokers, and the average body mass index was 29 kg/m².

Participants who reported cycling up to 1 hour every week at baseline had a 25% reduction in all-cause mortality, compared with those who did not cycle. The biggest reduction (31%) in all-cause mortality was seen for cycling 2.5-5 hours a week; cycling for 1-2.5 hours, and for more than 5 hours, yielded 23% and 24% risk reductions, respectively.

A reverse J–shaped relationship between cycling duration and reduction in all-cause mortality was seen, Dr. Ried-Larsen noted during a live oral session at the virtual meeting. “The maximum benefit [was at] around 5 hours per week, and the benefits persisted until around 9 hours per week.” Adjustment for the prevalence of stroke, MI, cancer, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and central obesity did not alter the findings.

“The direction of the association was the same for cardiovascular mortality as all-cause mortality, although a bit weaker, with the maximum benefit being around 4 hours per week, and that persisted up until around 8 hours per week,” Dr. Ried-Larsen said.

The benefits of cycling on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lost, however, if those who cycled at baseline stopped by the second examination. Those who did not cycle at the first but did at the second examination got a benefit on both, as did those who continued cycling.

“Cycling is among one of the preferred activities for diabetes patients, so it actually may help them to achieve the recommend level of physical activity,” Dr. Ried-Larsen said.
 

Tailored exercise program important

Advice for exercise “should be tailored to the individual and based on starting fitness levels and activity levels,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs recommended.

“Those who are the most sedentary and the least fit have the most to gain from doing any activity. They should be advised to start out slowly and progress slowly with both aerobic activities and some resistance training,” Dr. Colberg-Ochs said.

She added: “In addition, individuals over 40 should engage in regular balance training, and all individuals should do some flexibility exercises.”

The studies received no commercial funding and all those mentioned in this article had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lai Y-J et al. EASD 2020, Poster presentation 267; Ried-Larsen M et al. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 194.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A global analysis of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has shown mixed results for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.

As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.

The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.

The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.

SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.

The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
 

Results of the analysis

“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.

Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.

In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.

On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.

The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.

“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
 

Explaining the GI cancer results

“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.

H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.

While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.

A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.

At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
 

Reducing NCD deaths

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.

High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.

“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”

Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.

“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.

Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.

The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.

“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.

“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.

COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.

The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.

The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.

A global analysis of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has shown mixed results for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.

As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.

The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.

The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.

SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.

The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
 

Results of the analysis

“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.

Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.

In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.

On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.

The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.

“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
 

Explaining the GI cancer results

“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.

H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.

While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.

A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.

At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
 

Reducing NCD deaths

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.

High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.

“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”

Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.

“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.

Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.

The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.

“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.

“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.

COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.

The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.

The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.

A global analysis of premature deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has shown mixed results for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

The data suggest fewer people are dying from stomach cancer, but in some countries, the risk of colorectal cancer death is increasing or declining much more slowly than other causes of premature death.

As for other cancers, in more than half of the countries analyzed, the risk of liver and prostate cancer death is on the rise in men, and the risk of lung cancer death is on the rise in women.

The global decrease in the risk of stomach cancer death may be explained by the fact that stomach cancer’s main cause is Helicobacter pylori infection, which correlates with general food hygiene, the study’s corresponding author Majid Ezzati, PhD, professor of global environmental health at Imperial College London, said in an interview.

“Factors such as more widespread electrification and refrigeration tend to drive the rates down,” he explained.

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues detailed their findings in the second edition of the NCD Countdown 2030 report, recently published in The Lancet.

The report revolves around the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which is to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by one-third between 2015 and 2030. The causes of death include cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, which are collectively known as NCD4. “Premature” deaths are defined as deaths in people aged 30-70 years.

SDG target 3.4 is still attainable, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. However, their report showed that many countries are falling short of this goal.

The findings come from an analysis of 2016 World Health Organization global estimate data on age-, sex-, and cause-specific mortality for 176 countries and territories with at least 200,000 inhabitants. Mathematical modeling was used to assess the number of approaches countries used to accelerate declines in mortality.
 

Results of the analysis

“Trends in the risk of death from 2010 to 2016 varied considerably among NCD4 causes of death,” Dr. Ezzati and colleagues wrote.

Stomach cancer, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic respiratory diseases had the fastest rates of decline among risks of premature death.

In fact, stomach cancer was the fastest declining cause of death in 45 countries (25.6%) among men and in 40 countries (22.7%) among women.

On the other hand, the risk of premature death from colorectal, liver, breast, prostate, and other cancers declined more slowly than the risk of premature death from other NCDs.

The risk of death from colorectal, liver, and prostate cancers in men and lung cancer in women rose in more than 50% of the countries surveyed.

“The median annual rate of change in the probability of dying prematurely from various causes ranged from +0.2% per year for lung cancer to –2.5% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in women, and from +0.5% per year for colorectal cancer to –1.8% per year for hemorrhagic stroke in men,” the investigators summarized.
 

Explaining the GI cancer results

“There are dramatic differences between the upper and lower GI tract, both in terms of anatomy/embryologic origin but also in terms of exposures,” observed Mark Lewis, MD, medical director of the gastrointestinal oncology program at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, in an interview.

H. pylori infection, family history, and diet factor into stomach cancer risk, Dr. Lewis said.

While family history isn’t modifiable, “we are much better now at identifying and eradicating the potentially carcinogenic H. pylori bacterium. In terms of diet, the advent of modern refrigeration has made the prevalence of heavily salted/preserved foods decline,” he added.

A 14-day course of treatment (with a proton pump inhibitor and antibiotics) can eliminate H. pylori, Dr. Lewis continued. “The prophylactic effect against gastric cancer is massive, cutting risk by roughly half,” he said.

At least in the United States, colorectal cancer rates have declined in people 50 years and older, but rates have risen sharply in younger age groups, increasing by 2% annually in the last decade, according to statistics in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“One prevailing theory is prior antibiotic prescriptions [even in childhood] might perturb the microbiome of the lower GI tract and predispose to cancer,” Dr. Lewis said, pointing to a recent study in the British Journal of Cancer that identified an association between repeated antibiotic use and colorectal cancer.
 

Reducing NCD deaths

Dr. Ezzati and colleagues said six high-income countries – Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and South Korea – are likely to meet SDG target 3.4 if they maintain or exceed average rates of decline seen during 2010-2016. Seventeen countries are on track to reach the target for women, and 15 countries are on track for men.

High-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, Australasia, and Canada have seen the lowest NCD4 mortality risk, whereas low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and men in central Asia and eastern Europe have seen the highest risk.

“To move forward, we must learn from those countries that are doing well and replicate their strategies to NCD prevention and healthcare,” Dr. Ezzati said in a statement. “Our analysis shows that every country still has options to achieve SDG target 3.4, but they need to address multiple diseases and have strong health systems.”

Increasing access to effective cancer screening and diagnosing and treating cancers earlier could help reduce long-term health consequences and premature deaths from cancer, according to Dr. Ezzati and colleagues. Screening would help even the playing field on cancer diagnosis and survival rates between higher-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.

“This approach will allow earlier diagnosis during precancerous or early stages of disease, followed by treatment of those cancers with effective treatment,” the authors stated.

Tobacco and alcohol interventions and increasing access to quality primary care would also help tamp down on NCD-related deaths.

The authors acknowledged that low-income countries, which may be struggling with other health crises such as COVID-19 and Ebola, may find it a challenge to stage such interventions.

“COVID-19 has exposed how a failure to invest in effective public health to prevent NCDs and provide health care for people living with NCDs can come back to bite us,” said Katie Dain, CEO of the NCD Alliance.

“The good news is that all countries can still meet the 2030 targets, with sound policies and smart investments. NCD prevention and treatment can no longer be seen a ‘nice to have.’ It must be considered as part of pandemic preparedness,” she added.

COVID-19 should serve as an impetus for governments to invest in healthier lifestyle and diet habits and curb alcohol and tobacco use, according to an editorial in The Lancet related to the analysis.

The current report updates 2018’s first NCD Countdown Report, which linked NCD4 conditions to approximately 32 million or 80% of NCD deaths. Unlike the recent report, 2018’s data didn’t focus on specific diseases.

The current report was funded by Research England. Dr. Ezzati received a charitable grant from the AstraZeneca Young Health Programme and personal fees from Prudential and Scor, outside of this report. None of the other authors reported competing interests. Dr. Lewis has no relevant disclosures except that he is a commentator for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
 

SOURCE: Bennett JE et al. Lancet. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31761-X.

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration wants updated boxed warnings on benzodiazepines to reflect the “serious” risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with these medications.

“The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about these serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately,” the FDA said in a safety communication.

The FDA also wants revisions to the patient medication guides for benzodiazepines to help educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

“While benzodiazepines are important therapies for many Americans, they are also commonly abused and misused, often together with opioid pain relievers and other medicines, alcohol, and illicit drugs,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in a statement.

“We are taking measures and requiring new labeling information to help health care professionals and patients better understand that, while benzodiazepines have many treatment benefits, they also carry with them an increased risk of abuse, misuse, addiction, and dependence,” said Dr. Hahn.
 

Ninety-two million prescriptions in 2019

Benzodiazepines are widely used to treat anxiety, insomnia, seizures, and other conditions, often for extended periods of time.

According to the FDA, in 2019, an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from U.S. outpatient pharmacies, most commonly alprazolam, clonazepam, and lorazepam.

Data from 2018 show that roughly 5.4 million people in the United States 12 years and older abused or misused benzodiazepines in the previous year.

Although the precise risk of benzodiazepine addiction remains unclear, population data “clearly indicate that both primary benzodiazepine use disorders and polysubstance addiction involving benzodiazepines do occur,” the FDA said.

Data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015-2016 suggest that half million community-dwelling U.S. adults were estimated to have a benzodiazepine use disorder.
 

Jump in overdose deaths

Overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines jumped from 1,298 in 2010 to 11,537 in 2017 – an increase of more 780%. Most of these deaths involved benzodiazepines taken with prescription opioids.

Before prescribing a benzodiazepine and during treatment, a patient’s risk for abuse, misuse, and addiction should be assessed, the FDA said.

The agency urged particular caution when prescribing benzodiazepines with opioids and other central nervous system depressants, which has resulted in serious adverse events including severe respiratory depression and death.

The FDA also says patients and caregivers should be warned about the risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, and withdrawal with benzodiazepines and the associated signs and symptoms.

Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving benzodiazepines or other medicines to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

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

Suicidality appears to have increased sharply in Israel during the initial nationwide lockdown implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gil Zalsman, MD, MHA, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

He presented highlights from a soon-to-be-published analysis of the content of online chat sessions fielded by a national crisis hotline (Sahar.org.il) during the first 6 months of 2020, compared with January through June 2019, in the pre-COVID-19 era.

It’s far too early to say whether actual deaths tied to suicide rose significantly during the spring lockdown, since medical examiners often take a long time before ruling suicide as cause of death. But this much is clear: The number of suicide-related chat sessions recorded at the volunteer-staffed national hotline during April 2020 was two-and-a-half times greater than in April 2019, and threefold greater in May 2020 than a year earlier, according to Dr. Zalsman, professor of psychiatry at Tel Aviv University and director of the Geha Mental Health Center in Petach Tikva, Israel, where he also directs an adolescent day unit.

The proportion of chats handled at the crisis hotline, many of them concerned with the standard topics – relationships, stress, fears, anxiety, and other non–suicide-related issues – was 48% greater in the first half of 2020, compared with a year earlier. Indeed, the pandemic is putting an enormous strain on crisis hotlines the world over.

“Everybody who is working hotlines knows that they’re falling apart. There are too many calls, too many chats. They need to multiply their volunteers,” Dr. Zalsman said.

The number of suicide-related online chats jumped the week of March 12, when schools closed across Israel and a partial lockdown began. The peak in suicide-related chats occurred beginning the week of April 17, when the forced total lockdown was declared.

“Everything was closed. You couldn’t go out or the police would arrest you,” Dr. Zalsman recalled.

The suicide-related chat count started to drop off in mid-May, when schools reopened, and continued to decline through the end of June.

Only a small percentage of suicide-related chats were deemed by crisis hotline volunteers and their supervisors to be truly life-threatening situations necessitating a call to the police. But the number of such exchanges was significantly greater in April and May 2020 than in January and February, or in April and May 2019.

Use of the crisis hotline is ordinarily skewed toward tech-savvy young people, or as Dr. Zalsman called them, “kids who live inside their computers.” He note that the psychological impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents is largely unexplored research territory to date.

“For some young kids, the fear that they will contaminate their parents or grandparents is horrifying. You can kill your grandfather by coughing,” Dr. Zalsman said.
 

Older people also seek help

A finding that he and his coinvestigators didn’t anticipate was the significantly increased use of the service by individuals aged 65 and older during the pandemic. This underscores the increased vulnerability of older people, which stems in part from their heightened risk for severe infection and consequent need for prolonged physical isolation, he said.

The conventional thinking among suicidologists is that during times of crisis – wars, natural disasters – suicidality plunges, then rises quickly afterward.

“People withhold themselves. When there’s a big danger from outside they ignore the danger from inside. And once the danger from outside is gone, they’re left with emptiness, unemployment, economic crisis, and they start” taking their own lives, Dr. Zalsman explained. He expects suicidality to increase after the pandemic, or as the Israeli crisis hotline data suggest, perhaps even during it, for multiple reasons. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are often going untreated. The prolonged physical isolation causes emotional difficulties for some people, especially when accompanied by social isolation and loneliness. There is grief over the loss of friends and relatives because of COVID-19. And there is an expectation of looming economic hardship, with mounting unemployment and bankruptcies.

Dr. Zalsman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zalsman G. ECNP 2020, Session TP.06.

Suicidality appears to have increased sharply in Israel during the initial nationwide lockdown implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gil Zalsman, MD, MHA, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

He presented highlights from a soon-to-be-published analysis of the content of online chat sessions fielded by a national crisis hotline (Sahar.org.il) during the first 6 months of 2020, compared with January through June 2019, in the pre-COVID-19 era.

It’s far too early to say whether actual deaths tied to suicide rose significantly during the spring lockdown, since medical examiners often take a long time before ruling suicide as cause of death. But this much is clear: The number of suicide-related chat sessions recorded at the volunteer-staffed national hotline during April 2020 was two-and-a-half times greater than in April 2019, and threefold greater in May 2020 than a year earlier, according to Dr. Zalsman, professor of psychiatry at Tel Aviv University and director of the Geha Mental Health Center in Petach Tikva, Israel, where he also directs an adolescent day unit.

The proportion of chats handled at the crisis hotline, many of them concerned with the standard topics – relationships, stress, fears, anxiety, and other non–suicide-related issues – was 48% greater in the first half of 2020, compared with a year earlier. Indeed, the pandemic is putting an enormous strain on crisis hotlines the world over.

“Everybody who is working hotlines knows that they’re falling apart. There are too many calls, too many chats. They need to multiply their volunteers,” Dr. Zalsman said.

The number of suicide-related online chats jumped the week of March 12, when schools closed across Israel and a partial lockdown began. The peak in suicide-related chats occurred beginning the week of April 17, when the forced total lockdown was declared.

“Everything was closed. You couldn’t go out or the police would arrest you,” Dr. Zalsman recalled.

The suicide-related chat count started to drop off in mid-May, when schools reopened, and continued to decline through the end of June.

Only a small percentage of suicide-related chats were deemed by crisis hotline volunteers and their supervisors to be truly life-threatening situations necessitating a call to the police. But the number of such exchanges was significantly greater in April and May 2020 than in January and February, or in April and May 2019.

Use of the crisis hotline is ordinarily skewed toward tech-savvy young people, or as Dr. Zalsman called them, “kids who live inside their computers.” He note that the psychological impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents is largely unexplored research territory to date.

“For some young kids, the fear that they will contaminate their parents or grandparents is horrifying. You can kill your grandfather by coughing,” Dr. Zalsman said.
 

Older people also seek help

A finding that he and his coinvestigators didn’t anticipate was the significantly increased use of the service by individuals aged 65 and older during the pandemic. This underscores the increased vulnerability of older people, which stems in part from their heightened risk for severe infection and consequent need for prolonged physical isolation, he said.

The conventional thinking among suicidologists is that during times of crisis – wars, natural disasters – suicidality plunges, then rises quickly afterward.

“People withhold themselves. When there’s a big danger from outside they ignore the danger from inside. And once the danger from outside is gone, they’re left with emptiness, unemployment, economic crisis, and they start” taking their own lives, Dr. Zalsman explained. He expects suicidality to increase after the pandemic, or as the Israeli crisis hotline data suggest, perhaps even during it, for multiple reasons. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are often going untreated. The prolonged physical isolation causes emotional difficulties for some people, especially when accompanied by social isolation and loneliness. There is grief over the loss of friends and relatives because of COVID-19. And there is an expectation of looming economic hardship, with mounting unemployment and bankruptcies.

Dr. Zalsman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zalsman G. ECNP 2020, Session TP.06.

Suicidality appears to have increased sharply in Israel during the initial nationwide lockdown implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gil Zalsman, MD, MHA, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

He presented highlights from a soon-to-be-published analysis of the content of online chat sessions fielded by a national crisis hotline (Sahar.org.il) during the first 6 months of 2020, compared with January through June 2019, in the pre-COVID-19 era.

It’s far too early to say whether actual deaths tied to suicide rose significantly during the spring lockdown, since medical examiners often take a long time before ruling suicide as cause of death. But this much is clear: The number of suicide-related chat sessions recorded at the volunteer-staffed national hotline during April 2020 was two-and-a-half times greater than in April 2019, and threefold greater in May 2020 than a year earlier, according to Dr. Zalsman, professor of psychiatry at Tel Aviv University and director of the Geha Mental Health Center in Petach Tikva, Israel, where he also directs an adolescent day unit.

The proportion of chats handled at the crisis hotline, many of them concerned with the standard topics – relationships, stress, fears, anxiety, and other non–suicide-related issues – was 48% greater in the first half of 2020, compared with a year earlier. Indeed, the pandemic is putting an enormous strain on crisis hotlines the world over.

“Everybody who is working hotlines knows that they’re falling apart. There are too many calls, too many chats. They need to multiply their volunteers,” Dr. Zalsman said.

The number of suicide-related online chats jumped the week of March 12, when schools closed across Israel and a partial lockdown began. The peak in suicide-related chats occurred beginning the week of April 17, when the forced total lockdown was declared.

“Everything was closed. You couldn’t go out or the police would arrest you,” Dr. Zalsman recalled.

The suicide-related chat count started to drop off in mid-May, when schools reopened, and continued to decline through the end of June.

Only a small percentage of suicide-related chats were deemed by crisis hotline volunteers and their supervisors to be truly life-threatening situations necessitating a call to the police. But the number of such exchanges was significantly greater in April and May 2020 than in January and February, or in April and May 2019.

Use of the crisis hotline is ordinarily skewed toward tech-savvy young people, or as Dr. Zalsman called them, “kids who live inside their computers.” He note that the psychological impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents is largely unexplored research territory to date.

“For some young kids, the fear that they will contaminate their parents or grandparents is horrifying. You can kill your grandfather by coughing,” Dr. Zalsman said.
 

Older people also seek help

A finding that he and his coinvestigators didn’t anticipate was the significantly increased use of the service by individuals aged 65 and older during the pandemic. This underscores the increased vulnerability of older people, which stems in part from their heightened risk for severe infection and consequent need for prolonged physical isolation, he said.

The conventional thinking among suicidologists is that during times of crisis – wars, natural disasters – suicidality plunges, then rises quickly afterward.

“People withhold themselves. When there’s a big danger from outside they ignore the danger from inside. And once the danger from outside is gone, they’re left with emptiness, unemployment, economic crisis, and they start” taking their own lives, Dr. Zalsman explained. He expects suicidality to increase after the pandemic, or as the Israeli crisis hotline data suggest, perhaps even during it, for multiple reasons. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are often going untreated. The prolonged physical isolation causes emotional difficulties for some people, especially when accompanied by social isolation and loneliness. There is grief over the loss of friends and relatives because of COVID-19. And there is an expectation of looming economic hardship, with mounting unemployment and bankruptcies.

Dr. Zalsman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zalsman G. ECNP 2020, Session TP.06.

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) on Wednesday said it advanced into phase 3 testing of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which uses the same technology as an Ebola vaccine already approved by European regulators.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is aiding Johnson & Johnson with development, described this in a news release as the fourth phase 3 clinical trial of evaluating an investigational vaccine for coronavirus disease.

This NIAID tally tracks products likely to be presented soon for Food and Drug Administration approval. (The World Health Organization’s COVID vaccine tracker lists nine candidates as having reached this stage, including products developed in Russia and China.)

As many as 60,000 volunteers will be enrolled in the trial, with about 215 clinical research sites expected to participate, NIAID said. The vaccine will be tested in the United States and abroad.

The start of this test, known as the ENSEMBLE trial, follows positive results from a Phase 1/2a clinical study, which involved a single vaccination. The results of this study have been submitted to medRxiv and are set to be published online imminently.

New Brunswick, N.J–based J&J said it intends to offer the vaccine on “a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.” If testing proceeds well, J&J might seek an emergency use clearance for the vaccine, which could possibly allow the first batches to be made available in early 2021.

J&J’s vaccine is unusual in that it will be tested based on a single dose, while other advanced candidates have been tested in two-dose regimens.

J&J on Wednesday also released the study protocol for its phase 3 test. The developers of the other late-stage COVID vaccine candidates also have done this, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Because of the great interest in the COVID vaccine, the American Medical Association had last month asked the FDA to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.
 

Trials and tribulations

One of these experimental COVID vaccines already has had a setback in phase 3 testing, which is a fairly routine occurrence in drug development. But with a pandemic still causing deaths and disrupting lives around the world, there has been intense interest in each step of the effort to develop a COVID vaccine.

AstraZeneca PLC earlier this month announced a temporary cessation of all their coronavirus vaccine trials to investigate an “unexplained illness” that arose in a participant, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

On September 12, AstraZeneca announced that clinical trials for the AZD1222, which it developed with Oxford University, had resumed in the United Kingdom. On Wednesday, CNBC said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the news station that AstraZeneca’s late-stage coronavirus vaccine trial in the United States remains on hold until safety concerns are resolved, a critical issue with all the fast-track COVID vaccines now being tested.

“Look at the AstraZeneca program, phase 3 clinical trial, a lot of hope. [A] single serious adverse event report in the United Kingdom, global shutdown, and [a] hold of the clinical trials,” Mr. Azar told CNBC.

The New York Times has reported on concerns stemming from serious neurologic illnesses in two participants, both women, who received AstraZeneca’s experimental vaccine in Britain.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Wednesday separately held a hearing with the leaders of the FDA and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, allowing an airing of lawmakers’ concerns about a potential rush to approve a COVID vaccine.
 

Details of J&J trial

The J&J trial is designed primarily to determine if the investigational vaccine can prevent moderate to severe COVID-19 after a single dose. It also is designed to examine whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 requiring medical intervention and if the vaccine can prevent milder cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, NIAID said.

Principal investigators for the phase 3 trial of the J & J vaccine are Paul A. Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama in Birmingham; Beatriz Grinsztejn, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory of Clinical Research on HIV/AIDS at the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases-Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Glenda E. Gray, MBBCh, president and chief executive officer of the South African Medical Research Council and coprincipal investigator of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.