Federal Practitioner

For patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), first-line therapy with a triple combination of targeted agents showed encouraging response rates in the phase 2 CLL2-GIVe trial.

Among 41 patients with untreated CLL bearing deleterious TP53 mutations and/or the 17p chromosomal deletion who received the GIVe regimen consisting of obinutuzumab (Gazyva), ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and venetoclax (Venclexta), the complete response rate at final restaging was 58.5%, and 33 patients with a confirmed response were negative for minimal residual disease after a median follow-up of 18.6 months, reported Henriette Huber, MD, of University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

“The GIVe regimen is promising first-line therapy for patients with high-risk CLL,” she said in a presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable, she said, but added that “some higher-grade infections are of concern.” The rate of grade 3 or greater infections/infestations in the study was 19.5%.

Sound rationale (with caveat)

Another adverse event of concern is the rate of atrial fibrillation in the comparatively young patient population (median age 62), noted Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte Calif., who commented on the study for MDedge.

He pointed out that second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors such as acalabrutinib (Calquence) may pose a lower risk of atrial fibrillation than the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib used in the CLL2-GIVe study.

In general, however, the rationale for the combination is sound, Dr. Danilov said.

“Of all the patient populations that we deal with within CLL, this probably would be most appropriate for this type of therapy. Patients with deletion 17p or TP53 mutations still represent an unmet medical need compared to other patients who don’t have those mutations,” he said.

Patients with CLL bearing the mutations have lower clinical response rates to novel therapies and generally do not respond well to chemoimmunotherapy, he said.

“The question becomes whether using these all at the same time, versus sequential strategies – using one drug and then after that, at relapse, another – is better, and obviously this trial doesn’t address that,” he said.
 

Three targets

The investigators enrolled 24 men and 17 women with untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations and adequate organ function (creatinine clearance rate of more than 50 mL/min). The median age was 62 (range 35-85 years); 78% of patients had Binet stage B or C disease. The median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score was 3 (range 0 to 8).

All patients received treatment with the combination for 6 months. The CD20 inhibitor obinutuzumab was given in a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib was given continuously at a dose of 420 mg per day beginning on the first day of the first cycle. Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor, was started on day 22 of cycle 1, and was increased to 400 mg per day over 5 weeks until the end of cycle 12.

If patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) according to International Workshop on CLL criteria at final restaging (performed with imaging at the end of cycle 12 followed by bone marrow biopsy 2 months later), ibrutinib would be stopped beginning at cycle 15. Patients who did not have a CR or CRi would continue on ibrutinib until cycle 36.

Encouraging results

All but 3 of the 41 patients reached final restaging. Analyses of efficacy and safety included all 41 patients.

The CR/CRi rate at final restaging, the primary endpoint, was accomplished in 24 patients (58.8%), and 14 patients (34.1%) had a partial response.

Of the three patients for whom responses could not be assessed, two died (one from ovarian cancer which was retrospectively determined to have been present at enrollment, and one at cycle 9 from cardiac failure), and the third patient withdrew consent at cycle 10.

In all, 33 patients (80.5%) were MRD-negative in peripheral blood, 4 remained MRD positive, and 4 were not assessed. Per protocol, 22 patients with undetectable MRD and a CR or CRi discontinued therapy at week 15. An additional 13 patients also discontinued therapy because of adverse events or other reasons, and 6 remained on therapy beyond cycle 15.

The most frequent adverse events of any grade through the end of cycle 14 were gastrointestinal disorders in 83%, none higher than grade 2; infections and infestations in 70.7%, of which 19.5% were grade 3 or greater in severity; and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 58.5%, most of which (53.7%) were grade 3 or greater.

Cardiac disorders were reported in 19.5% of all patients, including 12.2% with atrial fibrillation; grade 3 or greater atrial fibrillation occurred in 2.4% of patients.

There was one case each of cerebral aspergillosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without PCR testing), urosepsis, staphylococcal sepsis and febrile infection.

Laboratory confirmed tumor lysis syndrome, all grade 3 or greater, was reported in 9.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 29.3% of patients, with a total of 7.3% being grade 3 or greater.

The trial was supported by Janssen-Cilag and Roche. Dr. Huber disclosed travel reimbursement from Novartis. Dr. Danilov disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Huber H et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S157.

For patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), first-line therapy with a triple combination of targeted agents showed encouraging response rates in the phase 2 CLL2-GIVe trial.

Among 41 patients with untreated CLL bearing deleterious TP53 mutations and/or the 17p chromosomal deletion who received the GIVe regimen consisting of obinutuzumab (Gazyva), ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and venetoclax (Venclexta), the complete response rate at final restaging was 58.5%, and 33 patients with a confirmed response were negative for minimal residual disease after a median follow-up of 18.6 months, reported Henriette Huber, MD, of University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

“The GIVe regimen is promising first-line therapy for patients with high-risk CLL,” she said in a presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable, she said, but added that “some higher-grade infections are of concern.” The rate of grade 3 or greater infections/infestations in the study was 19.5%.

Sound rationale (with caveat)

Another adverse event of concern is the rate of atrial fibrillation in the comparatively young patient population (median age 62), noted Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte Calif., who commented on the study for MDedge.

He pointed out that second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors such as acalabrutinib (Calquence) may pose a lower risk of atrial fibrillation than the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib used in the CLL2-GIVe study.

In general, however, the rationale for the combination is sound, Dr. Danilov said.

“Of all the patient populations that we deal with within CLL, this probably would be most appropriate for this type of therapy. Patients with deletion 17p or TP53 mutations still represent an unmet medical need compared to other patients who don’t have those mutations,” he said.

Patients with CLL bearing the mutations have lower clinical response rates to novel therapies and generally do not respond well to chemoimmunotherapy, he said.

“The question becomes whether using these all at the same time, versus sequential strategies – using one drug and then after that, at relapse, another – is better, and obviously this trial doesn’t address that,” he said.
 

Three targets

The investigators enrolled 24 men and 17 women with untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations and adequate organ function (creatinine clearance rate of more than 50 mL/min). The median age was 62 (range 35-85 years); 78% of patients had Binet stage B or C disease. The median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score was 3 (range 0 to 8).

All patients received treatment with the combination for 6 months. The CD20 inhibitor obinutuzumab was given in a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib was given continuously at a dose of 420 mg per day beginning on the first day of the first cycle. Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor, was started on day 22 of cycle 1, and was increased to 400 mg per day over 5 weeks until the end of cycle 12.

If patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) according to International Workshop on CLL criteria at final restaging (performed with imaging at the end of cycle 12 followed by bone marrow biopsy 2 months later), ibrutinib would be stopped beginning at cycle 15. Patients who did not have a CR or CRi would continue on ibrutinib until cycle 36.

Encouraging results

All but 3 of the 41 patients reached final restaging. Analyses of efficacy and safety included all 41 patients.

The CR/CRi rate at final restaging, the primary endpoint, was accomplished in 24 patients (58.8%), and 14 patients (34.1%) had a partial response.

Of the three patients for whom responses could not be assessed, two died (one from ovarian cancer which was retrospectively determined to have been present at enrollment, and one at cycle 9 from cardiac failure), and the third patient withdrew consent at cycle 10.

In all, 33 patients (80.5%) were MRD-negative in peripheral blood, 4 remained MRD positive, and 4 were not assessed. Per protocol, 22 patients with undetectable MRD and a CR or CRi discontinued therapy at week 15. An additional 13 patients also discontinued therapy because of adverse events or other reasons, and 6 remained on therapy beyond cycle 15.

The most frequent adverse events of any grade through the end of cycle 14 were gastrointestinal disorders in 83%, none higher than grade 2; infections and infestations in 70.7%, of which 19.5% were grade 3 or greater in severity; and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 58.5%, most of which (53.7%) were grade 3 or greater.

Cardiac disorders were reported in 19.5% of all patients, including 12.2% with atrial fibrillation; grade 3 or greater atrial fibrillation occurred in 2.4% of patients.

There was one case each of cerebral aspergillosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without PCR testing), urosepsis, staphylococcal sepsis and febrile infection.

Laboratory confirmed tumor lysis syndrome, all grade 3 or greater, was reported in 9.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 29.3% of patients, with a total of 7.3% being grade 3 or greater.

The trial was supported by Janssen-Cilag and Roche. Dr. Huber disclosed travel reimbursement from Novartis. Dr. Danilov disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Huber H et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S157.

For patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), first-line therapy with a triple combination of targeted agents showed encouraging response rates in the phase 2 CLL2-GIVe trial.

Among 41 patients with untreated CLL bearing deleterious TP53 mutations and/or the 17p chromosomal deletion who received the GIVe regimen consisting of obinutuzumab (Gazyva), ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and venetoclax (Venclexta), the complete response rate at final restaging was 58.5%, and 33 patients with a confirmed response were negative for minimal residual disease after a median follow-up of 18.6 months, reported Henriette Huber, MD, of University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

“The GIVe regimen is promising first-line therapy for patients with high-risk CLL,” she said in a presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable, she said, but added that “some higher-grade infections are of concern.” The rate of grade 3 or greater infections/infestations in the study was 19.5%.

Sound rationale (with caveat)

Another adverse event of concern is the rate of atrial fibrillation in the comparatively young patient population (median age 62), noted Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte Calif., who commented on the study for MDedge.

He pointed out that second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors such as acalabrutinib (Calquence) may pose a lower risk of atrial fibrillation than the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib used in the CLL2-GIVe study.

In general, however, the rationale for the combination is sound, Dr. Danilov said.

“Of all the patient populations that we deal with within CLL, this probably would be most appropriate for this type of therapy. Patients with deletion 17p or TP53 mutations still represent an unmet medical need compared to other patients who don’t have those mutations,” he said.

Patients with CLL bearing the mutations have lower clinical response rates to novel therapies and generally do not respond well to chemoimmunotherapy, he said.

“The question becomes whether using these all at the same time, versus sequential strategies – using one drug and then after that, at relapse, another – is better, and obviously this trial doesn’t address that,” he said.
 

Three targets

The investigators enrolled 24 men and 17 women with untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations and adequate organ function (creatinine clearance rate of more than 50 mL/min). The median age was 62 (range 35-85 years); 78% of patients had Binet stage B or C disease. The median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score was 3 (range 0 to 8).

All patients received treatment with the combination for 6 months. The CD20 inhibitor obinutuzumab was given in a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib was given continuously at a dose of 420 mg per day beginning on the first day of the first cycle. Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor, was started on day 22 of cycle 1, and was increased to 400 mg per day over 5 weeks until the end of cycle 12.

If patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) according to International Workshop on CLL criteria at final restaging (performed with imaging at the end of cycle 12 followed by bone marrow biopsy 2 months later), ibrutinib would be stopped beginning at cycle 15. Patients who did not have a CR or CRi would continue on ibrutinib until cycle 36.

Encouraging results

All but 3 of the 41 patients reached final restaging. Analyses of efficacy and safety included all 41 patients.

The CR/CRi rate at final restaging, the primary endpoint, was accomplished in 24 patients (58.8%), and 14 patients (34.1%) had a partial response.

Of the three patients for whom responses could not be assessed, two died (one from ovarian cancer which was retrospectively determined to have been present at enrollment, and one at cycle 9 from cardiac failure), and the third patient withdrew consent at cycle 10.

In all, 33 patients (80.5%) were MRD-negative in peripheral blood, 4 remained MRD positive, and 4 were not assessed. Per protocol, 22 patients with undetectable MRD and a CR or CRi discontinued therapy at week 15. An additional 13 patients also discontinued therapy because of adverse events or other reasons, and 6 remained on therapy beyond cycle 15.

The most frequent adverse events of any grade through the end of cycle 14 were gastrointestinal disorders in 83%, none higher than grade 2; infections and infestations in 70.7%, of which 19.5% were grade 3 or greater in severity; and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 58.5%, most of which (53.7%) were grade 3 or greater.

Cardiac disorders were reported in 19.5% of all patients, including 12.2% with atrial fibrillation; grade 3 or greater atrial fibrillation occurred in 2.4% of patients.

There was one case each of cerebral aspergillosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without PCR testing), urosepsis, staphylococcal sepsis and febrile infection.

Laboratory confirmed tumor lysis syndrome, all grade 3 or greater, was reported in 9.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 29.3% of patients, with a total of 7.3% being grade 3 or greater.

The trial was supported by Janssen-Cilag and Roche. Dr. Huber disclosed travel reimbursement from Novartis. Dr. Danilov disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Huber H et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S157.

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Drug adherence, healthcare use, medical costs, and heart failure rates were better among patients with type 2 diabetes who were newly prescribed a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in a real-world, observational study.

Composite cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were similar between the two drug classes.

Insiya Poonawalla, PhD, a researcher at Humana Healthcare Research, Flower Mound, Texas, reported the study results in an oral presentation on June 12 at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

The investigators matched more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes — half initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor and half initiated on a GLP-1 agonist — from the Humana database of insurance claims data.

“These findings suggest potential benefits” of SGLT2 inhibitors, “particularly where risk related to heart failure is an important consideration,” Poonawalla said, but as always, any benefits need to be weighed against any risks.

And “while this study provides a pretty complete and current picture of claims until 2018,” it has limitations inherent to observational data (such as possible errors or omissions in the claims data), she conceded.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, invited to comment on the research, said this preliminary study was likely too short and small to definitively demonstrate differences in composite CV outcomes between the two drug classes, but he noted that the overall findings are not unexpected.

And often, the particular CV risk profile of an individual patient will point to one or the other of these drug classes as a best fit, he noted.

Too soon to alter clinical practice

Kosiborod, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said he nevertheless feels “it would be a bit premature to use these findings as a guide to change clinical practice.”

“The study is relatively small in scope and likely underpowered to examine CV outcomes,” he said in an email interview.

Larger population-based studies and ideally head-to-head randomized controlled trials of various type 2 diabetes agents could compare these two drug classes more definitively, he asserted.

In the meantime, safety profiles of both medication classes “have been well established — in tens of thousands of patients in clinical trials and millions of patients prescribed these therapies in clinical practice,” he noted.

In general, the drugs in both classes are well-tolerated and safe for most patients with type 2 diabetes when used appropriately.

“Certainly, patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease (or at high risk for CV complications) are ideal candidates for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” Kosiborod said.

“Given the data we have from outcome trials, an SGLT2 inhibitor would be a better initial strategy in a patient with type 2 diabetes and heart failure (especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) and/or diabetic kidney disease,” he continued.

On the other hand, “a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be a better initial strategy in a type 2 diabetes patient with (or at very high risk for) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), especially if there is concomitant obesity contributing to the disease process.”

Limited comparisons of these two newer drug classes

“Real-world evidence comparing these two therapeutic classes based on CV outcomes is limited,” Poonawalla said at the start of her presentation, and relative treatment persistence, utilization, and cost data are even less well studied.

To investigate this, the researchers identified patients aged 19 to 89 years who were newly prescribed one of these two types of antidiabetic agents during January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017.

Poonawalla and senior study author Phil Schwab, PhD, research lead, Humana Healthcare Research, Louisville, Kentucky, clarified the study design and findings in an email to this new organization.

The team matched 5507 patients initiated on a GLP-1 agonist with 5507 patients newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Patients were a mean age of 65 years and 53% were women.

More than a third (37%) had established ASCVD, including myocardial infarction (MI) (7.9%) and stroke (9.8%), and 11.5% had heart failure.

About two thirds were receiving metformin and about a third were receiving insulin.

In the GLP-1 agonist group, more than half of patients were prescribed liraglutide (57%), followed by dulaglutide (33%), exenatide, and lixisenatide (two patients).

In the SGLT2 inhibitor group, close to 70% received canagliflozin, about a quarter received empagliflozin, and the rest received dapagliflozin.

During up to 3.5 years of follow-up, a similar percentage of patients in each group had either an MI, stroke, or died (the primary composite CV outcome) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89 - 1.07).

However, more patients in the GLP-1 agonist group had heart failure or died (the secondary composite CV outcome), driven by a higher rate of heart failure in this group.

But after adjusting for time to events there was no significant between-group difference in the secondary composite CV outcome (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99 - 1.21).

During the 12-months after the initial prescription, patients who were started on a GLP-1 agonist versus an SGLT2 inhibitor had higher mean monthly medical costs, which included hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits ($904 vs $834; P < .001).

They also had higher pharmacy costs, which covered all drugs ($891 vs $783; P < .001).

And they were more likely to discontinue treatment (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10 - 1.21), be hospitalized (14.4% vs 11.9%; P < .001), or visit the ED (27.4% vs 23.5%; P < .001).

“Not too surprising” and “somewhat reassuring”

Overall, Kosiborod did not find the results surprising.

Given the sample size and follow-up time, event rates were probably quite low and insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the composite CV outcomes, he reiterated.

However, given the comparable effects of these two drug types on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in similar patient populations with type 2 diabetes, it is not too surprising that there were no significant differences in these outcomes.

It was also “somewhat reassuring” to see that heart failure rates were lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, “as one would expect,” he said, because these agents “have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in multiple outcome trials, whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists’ beneficial CV effects appear to be more limited to MACE reduction.”

The higher rates of discontinuation with GLP-1 receptor agonists “is also not a surprise, since patients experience more gastrointestinal tolerability issues with these agents (mainly nausea),” which can be mitigated in the majority of patients with appropriate education and close follow up — but is not done consistently.

Similarly, “the cost differences are also expected, since GLP-1 receptor agonists tend to be more expensive.”

On the other hand, the higher rates of hospitalizations with GLP-1 agonists compared to SGLT2 inhibitors “requires further exploration and confirmation,” Kosiborod said.

But he suspects this may be due to residual confounding, “since GLP-1 agonists are typically initiated later in the type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm,” so these patients could have lengthier, more difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes with more comorbidities despite the propensity matching.

Poonawalla and Schwab are employed by Humana. Kosiborod has disclosed research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; and consulting fees from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis .



This article first appeared on Medscape.com

Drug adherence, healthcare use, medical costs, and heart failure rates were better among patients with type 2 diabetes who were newly prescribed a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in a real-world, observational study.

Composite cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were similar between the two drug classes.

Insiya Poonawalla, PhD, a researcher at Humana Healthcare Research, Flower Mound, Texas, reported the study results in an oral presentation on June 12 at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

The investigators matched more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes — half initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor and half initiated on a GLP-1 agonist — from the Humana database of insurance claims data.

“These findings suggest potential benefits” of SGLT2 inhibitors, “particularly where risk related to heart failure is an important consideration,” Poonawalla said, but as always, any benefits need to be weighed against any risks.

And “while this study provides a pretty complete and current picture of claims until 2018,” it has limitations inherent to observational data (such as possible errors or omissions in the claims data), she conceded.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, invited to comment on the research, said this preliminary study was likely too short and small to definitively demonstrate differences in composite CV outcomes between the two drug classes, but he noted that the overall findings are not unexpected.

And often, the particular CV risk profile of an individual patient will point to one or the other of these drug classes as a best fit, he noted.

Too soon to alter clinical practice

Kosiborod, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said he nevertheless feels “it would be a bit premature to use these findings as a guide to change clinical practice.”

“The study is relatively small in scope and likely underpowered to examine CV outcomes,” he said in an email interview.

Larger population-based studies and ideally head-to-head randomized controlled trials of various type 2 diabetes agents could compare these two drug classes more definitively, he asserted.

In the meantime, safety profiles of both medication classes “have been well established — in tens of thousands of patients in clinical trials and millions of patients prescribed these therapies in clinical practice,” he noted.

In general, the drugs in both classes are well-tolerated and safe for most patients with type 2 diabetes when used appropriately.

“Certainly, patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease (or at high risk for CV complications) are ideal candidates for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” Kosiborod said.

“Given the data we have from outcome trials, an SGLT2 inhibitor would be a better initial strategy in a patient with type 2 diabetes and heart failure (especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) and/or diabetic kidney disease,” he continued.

On the other hand, “a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be a better initial strategy in a type 2 diabetes patient with (or at very high risk for) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), especially if there is concomitant obesity contributing to the disease process.”

Limited comparisons of these two newer drug classes

“Real-world evidence comparing these two therapeutic classes based on CV outcomes is limited,” Poonawalla said at the start of her presentation, and relative treatment persistence, utilization, and cost data are even less well studied.

To investigate this, the researchers identified patients aged 19 to 89 years who were newly prescribed one of these two types of antidiabetic agents during January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017.

Poonawalla and senior study author Phil Schwab, PhD, research lead, Humana Healthcare Research, Louisville, Kentucky, clarified the study design and findings in an email to this new organization.

The team matched 5507 patients initiated on a GLP-1 agonist with 5507 patients newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Patients were a mean age of 65 years and 53% were women.

More than a third (37%) had established ASCVD, including myocardial infarction (MI) (7.9%) and stroke (9.8%), and 11.5% had heart failure.

About two thirds were receiving metformin and about a third were receiving insulin.

In the GLP-1 agonist group, more than half of patients were prescribed liraglutide (57%), followed by dulaglutide (33%), exenatide, and lixisenatide (two patients).

In the SGLT2 inhibitor group, close to 70% received canagliflozin, about a quarter received empagliflozin, and the rest received dapagliflozin.

During up to 3.5 years of follow-up, a similar percentage of patients in each group had either an MI, stroke, or died (the primary composite CV outcome) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89 - 1.07).

However, more patients in the GLP-1 agonist group had heart failure or died (the secondary composite CV outcome), driven by a higher rate of heart failure in this group.

But after adjusting for time to events there was no significant between-group difference in the secondary composite CV outcome (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99 - 1.21).

During the 12-months after the initial prescription, patients who were started on a GLP-1 agonist versus an SGLT2 inhibitor had higher mean monthly medical costs, which included hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits ($904 vs $834; P < .001).

They also had higher pharmacy costs, which covered all drugs ($891 vs $783; P < .001).

And they were more likely to discontinue treatment (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10 - 1.21), be hospitalized (14.4% vs 11.9%; P < .001), or visit the ED (27.4% vs 23.5%; P < .001).

“Not too surprising” and “somewhat reassuring”

Overall, Kosiborod did not find the results surprising.

Given the sample size and follow-up time, event rates were probably quite low and insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the composite CV outcomes, he reiterated.

However, given the comparable effects of these two drug types on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in similar patient populations with type 2 diabetes, it is not too surprising that there were no significant differences in these outcomes.

It was also “somewhat reassuring” to see that heart failure rates were lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, “as one would expect,” he said, because these agents “have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in multiple outcome trials, whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists’ beneficial CV effects appear to be more limited to MACE reduction.”

The higher rates of discontinuation with GLP-1 receptor agonists “is also not a surprise, since patients experience more gastrointestinal tolerability issues with these agents (mainly nausea),” which can be mitigated in the majority of patients with appropriate education and close follow up — but is not done consistently.

Similarly, “the cost differences are also expected, since GLP-1 receptor agonists tend to be more expensive.”

On the other hand, the higher rates of hospitalizations with GLP-1 agonists compared to SGLT2 inhibitors “requires further exploration and confirmation,” Kosiborod said.

But he suspects this may be due to residual confounding, “since GLP-1 agonists are typically initiated later in the type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm,” so these patients could have lengthier, more difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes with more comorbidities despite the propensity matching.

Poonawalla and Schwab are employed by Humana. Kosiborod has disclosed research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; and consulting fees from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis .



This article first appeared on Medscape.com

Drug adherence, healthcare use, medical costs, and heart failure rates were better among patients with type 2 diabetes who were newly prescribed a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in a real-world, observational study.

Composite cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were similar between the two drug classes.

Insiya Poonawalla, PhD, a researcher at Humana Healthcare Research, Flower Mound, Texas, reported the study results in an oral presentation on June 12 at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

The investigators matched more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes — half initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor and half initiated on a GLP-1 agonist — from the Humana database of insurance claims data.

“These findings suggest potential benefits” of SGLT2 inhibitors, “particularly where risk related to heart failure is an important consideration,” Poonawalla said, but as always, any benefits need to be weighed against any risks.

And “while this study provides a pretty complete and current picture of claims until 2018,” it has limitations inherent to observational data (such as possible errors or omissions in the claims data), she conceded.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, invited to comment on the research, said this preliminary study was likely too short and small to definitively demonstrate differences in composite CV outcomes between the two drug classes, but he noted that the overall findings are not unexpected.

And often, the particular CV risk profile of an individual patient will point to one or the other of these drug classes as a best fit, he noted.

Too soon to alter clinical practice

Kosiborod, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said he nevertheless feels “it would be a bit premature to use these findings as a guide to change clinical practice.”

“The study is relatively small in scope and likely underpowered to examine CV outcomes,” he said in an email interview.

Larger population-based studies and ideally head-to-head randomized controlled trials of various type 2 diabetes agents could compare these two drug classes more definitively, he asserted.

In the meantime, safety profiles of both medication classes “have been well established — in tens of thousands of patients in clinical trials and millions of patients prescribed these therapies in clinical practice,” he noted.

In general, the drugs in both classes are well-tolerated and safe for most patients with type 2 diabetes when used appropriately.

“Certainly, patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease (or at high risk for CV complications) are ideal candidates for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” Kosiborod said.

“Given the data we have from outcome trials, an SGLT2 inhibitor would be a better initial strategy in a patient with type 2 diabetes and heart failure (especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) and/or diabetic kidney disease,” he continued.

On the other hand, “a GLP-1 receptor agonist may be a better initial strategy in a type 2 diabetes patient with (or at very high risk for) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), especially if there is concomitant obesity contributing to the disease process.”

Limited comparisons of these two newer drug classes

“Real-world evidence comparing these two therapeutic classes based on CV outcomes is limited,” Poonawalla said at the start of her presentation, and relative treatment persistence, utilization, and cost data are even less well studied.

To investigate this, the researchers identified patients aged 19 to 89 years who were newly prescribed one of these two types of antidiabetic agents during January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017.

Poonawalla and senior study author Phil Schwab, PhD, research lead, Humana Healthcare Research, Louisville, Kentucky, clarified the study design and findings in an email to this new organization.

The team matched 5507 patients initiated on a GLP-1 agonist with 5507 patients newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Patients were a mean age of 65 years and 53% were women.

More than a third (37%) had established ASCVD, including myocardial infarction (MI) (7.9%) and stroke (9.8%), and 11.5% had heart failure.

About two thirds were receiving metformin and about a third were receiving insulin.

In the GLP-1 agonist group, more than half of patients were prescribed liraglutide (57%), followed by dulaglutide (33%), exenatide, and lixisenatide (two patients).

In the SGLT2 inhibitor group, close to 70% received canagliflozin, about a quarter received empagliflozin, and the rest received dapagliflozin.

During up to 3.5 years of follow-up, a similar percentage of patients in each group had either an MI, stroke, or died (the primary composite CV outcome) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89 - 1.07).

However, more patients in the GLP-1 agonist group had heart failure or died (the secondary composite CV outcome), driven by a higher rate of heart failure in this group.

But after adjusting for time to events there was no significant between-group difference in the secondary composite CV outcome (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99 - 1.21).

During the 12-months after the initial prescription, patients who were started on a GLP-1 agonist versus an SGLT2 inhibitor had higher mean monthly medical costs, which included hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits ($904 vs $834; P < .001).

They also had higher pharmacy costs, which covered all drugs ($891 vs $783; P < .001).

And they were more likely to discontinue treatment (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10 - 1.21), be hospitalized (14.4% vs 11.9%; P < .001), or visit the ED (27.4% vs 23.5%; P < .001).

“Not too surprising” and “somewhat reassuring”

Overall, Kosiborod did not find the results surprising.

Given the sample size and follow-up time, event rates were probably quite low and insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the composite CV outcomes, he reiterated.

However, given the comparable effects of these two drug types on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in similar patient populations with type 2 diabetes, it is not too surprising that there were no significant differences in these outcomes.

It was also “somewhat reassuring” to see that heart failure rates were lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, “as one would expect,” he said, because these agents “have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in multiple outcome trials, whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists’ beneficial CV effects appear to be more limited to MACE reduction.”

The higher rates of discontinuation with GLP-1 receptor agonists “is also not a surprise, since patients experience more gastrointestinal tolerability issues with these agents (mainly nausea),” which can be mitigated in the majority of patients with appropriate education and close follow up — but is not done consistently.

Similarly, “the cost differences are also expected, since GLP-1 receptor agonists tend to be more expensive.”

On the other hand, the higher rates of hospitalizations with GLP-1 agonists compared to SGLT2 inhibitors “requires further exploration and confirmation,” Kosiborod said.

But he suspects this may be due to residual confounding, “since GLP-1 agonists are typically initiated later in the type 2 diabetes treatment algorithm,” so these patients could have lengthier, more difficult-to-manage type 2 diabetes with more comorbidities despite the propensity matching.

Poonawalla and Schwab are employed by Humana. Kosiborod has disclosed research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; and consulting fees from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis .



This article first appeared on Medscape.com

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin during the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a solidly reduced need to either start insulin treatment or intensify existing insulin treatment, compared with those given placebo, in a post-hoc analysis of the study’s findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Empagliflozin markedly and durably delayed the need for insulin initiation, and reduced the need for large dose increases in patients already using insulin,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The patients in the empagliflozin (Jardiance) arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME had a 9% rate of initiating insulin treatment after 4 years in the study, compared with a 20% rate among patients who received placebo, a statistically significant 60% relative risk reduction. All patients in the trial continued on their background oral glucose-lowering medications.

Among the 48% of study patients who entered the study already using insulin as part of their usual regimen, 18% of those receiving empagliflozin required a significant increase in their insulin dosage (an increase of at least 20% from baseline) after 4 years. But among the control patients, 35% needed this level of insulin-dosage intensification, again a statistically significant difference that computed to a 58% relative reduction in the need for boosting the insulin dosage.

For both of these endpoints, the divergence between the empagliflozin and control arms became apparent within the first 6 months on treatment, and the between-group differences steadily increased during further follow-up. The analyses pooled the patients who received empagliflozin in the trial, which studied two different dosages of the drug.

Results add to the ‘risk and benefit conversation’

“This is one of the first studies to look at this question in a more granular fashion” in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving a drug from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, said Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. It provides “compelling” information to include when discussing oral diabetes-drug options with patients, he said in an interview.

Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes “often think about insulin” and their potential need to eventually start taking it, with the requirements it brings for training, monitoring, and drug delivery, along with the costs for insulin and glucose monitoring. “Patients are very attuned to potentially needing insulin and often ask about it. A reduced need for insulin will be an important part of the risk and benefit conversation” with patients about potential use of an SGLT2 inhibitor, he said.

Dr. Vaduganathan hypothesized that three factors could contribute to the impact of empagliflozin on insulin initiation and dosage level: a direct glycemic-control effect of the drug, the drug’s positive impact on overall well-being and function that could enhance patient movement, and the documented ability of treatment with empagliflozin and other drugs in its class to cut the rate of heart failure hospitalizations. This last feature is potentially relevant because insulin treatment often starts in patients with type 2 diabetes during a hospitalization, he noted.
 

Handelsman: Analysis shows no ‘spectacular effect’

The association of empagliflozin treatment with a reduced need for insulin seen in these data is consistent with expectations for patients with type 2 diabetes who receive an additional oral drug, commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of American in Tarzana, Calif. “In large part it has to do with patients on placebo having to get more insulin” because their additional oral-drug options were limited. Dr. Handelsman pointed out that during the period when the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial ran, from 2010-2015, fewer oral drugs were available than today, and clinicians in the study were encouraged to treat patients to their goal glycemia level according to local guidelines. In addition to a modest but useful glycemic control effect from SGLT2 inhibitors that, on average, cut hemoglobin A_1c levels by about 0.5%, they may also give a small boost to insulin sensitivity that can also defer the need to add or increase insulin. The level of insulin-treatment deference reported in the new analysis was “not a spectacular effect” he said in an interview.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study followed 7,020 patients at 590 sites in 42 countries for a median of 3.1 years. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke, and the results showed a statistically significant 14% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin treatment (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ). The results also showed that 12 weeks into the study, before patients could receive any additional drugs, HbA_1c levels averaged 0.54%-0.6% lower among the empagliflozin-treated patients than those in the placebo arm, with smaller between-group differences maintained through the balance of the study. At entry, more than half the enrolled patients were routinely treated with metformin, and close to half were receiving a sulfonyurea agent.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME results were also notable as showing for the first time that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor drug produced a substantial decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, incident heart failure, and progression of renal dysfunction, effects subsequently confirmed and also found for other agents in this drug class.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME was funded in part by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim and to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 30-OR.

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin during the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a solidly reduced need to either start insulin treatment or intensify existing insulin treatment, compared with those given placebo, in a post-hoc analysis of the study’s findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Empagliflozin markedly and durably delayed the need for insulin initiation, and reduced the need for large dose increases in patients already using insulin,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The patients in the empagliflozin (Jardiance) arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME had a 9% rate of initiating insulin treatment after 4 years in the study, compared with a 20% rate among patients who received placebo, a statistically significant 60% relative risk reduction. All patients in the trial continued on their background oral glucose-lowering medications.

Among the 48% of study patients who entered the study already using insulin as part of their usual regimen, 18% of those receiving empagliflozin required a significant increase in their insulin dosage (an increase of at least 20% from baseline) after 4 years. But among the control patients, 35% needed this level of insulin-dosage intensification, again a statistically significant difference that computed to a 58% relative reduction in the need for boosting the insulin dosage.

For both of these endpoints, the divergence between the empagliflozin and control arms became apparent within the first 6 months on treatment, and the between-group differences steadily increased during further follow-up. The analyses pooled the patients who received empagliflozin in the trial, which studied two different dosages of the drug.

Results add to the ‘risk and benefit conversation’

“This is one of the first studies to look at this question in a more granular fashion” in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving a drug from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, said Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. It provides “compelling” information to include when discussing oral diabetes-drug options with patients, he said in an interview.

Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes “often think about insulin” and their potential need to eventually start taking it, with the requirements it brings for training, monitoring, and drug delivery, along with the costs for insulin and glucose monitoring. “Patients are very attuned to potentially needing insulin and often ask about it. A reduced need for insulin will be an important part of the risk and benefit conversation” with patients about potential use of an SGLT2 inhibitor, he said.

Dr. Vaduganathan hypothesized that three factors could contribute to the impact of empagliflozin on insulin initiation and dosage level: a direct glycemic-control effect of the drug, the drug’s positive impact on overall well-being and function that could enhance patient movement, and the documented ability of treatment with empagliflozin and other drugs in its class to cut the rate of heart failure hospitalizations. This last feature is potentially relevant because insulin treatment often starts in patients with type 2 diabetes during a hospitalization, he noted.
 

Handelsman: Analysis shows no ‘spectacular effect’

The association of empagliflozin treatment with a reduced need for insulin seen in these data is consistent with expectations for patients with type 2 diabetes who receive an additional oral drug, commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of American in Tarzana, Calif. “In large part it has to do with patients on placebo having to get more insulin” because their additional oral-drug options were limited. Dr. Handelsman pointed out that during the period when the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial ran, from 2010-2015, fewer oral drugs were available than today, and clinicians in the study were encouraged to treat patients to their goal glycemia level according to local guidelines. In addition to a modest but useful glycemic control effect from SGLT2 inhibitors that, on average, cut hemoglobin A_1c levels by about 0.5%, they may also give a small boost to insulin sensitivity that can also defer the need to add or increase insulin. The level of insulin-treatment deference reported in the new analysis was “not a spectacular effect” he said in an interview.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study followed 7,020 patients at 590 sites in 42 countries for a median of 3.1 years. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke, and the results showed a statistically significant 14% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin treatment (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ). The results also showed that 12 weeks into the study, before patients could receive any additional drugs, HbA_1c levels averaged 0.54%-0.6% lower among the empagliflozin-treated patients than those in the placebo arm, with smaller between-group differences maintained through the balance of the study. At entry, more than half the enrolled patients were routinely treated with metformin, and close to half were receiving a sulfonyurea agent.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME results were also notable as showing for the first time that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor drug produced a substantial decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, incident heart failure, and progression of renal dysfunction, effects subsequently confirmed and also found for other agents in this drug class.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME was funded in part by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim and to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 30-OR.

Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin during the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a solidly reduced need to either start insulin treatment or intensify existing insulin treatment, compared with those given placebo, in a post-hoc analysis of the study’s findings.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Empagliflozin markedly and durably delayed the need for insulin initiation, and reduced the need for large dose increases in patients already using insulin,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The patients in the empagliflozin (Jardiance) arm of EMPA-REG OUTCOME had a 9% rate of initiating insulin treatment after 4 years in the study, compared with a 20% rate among patients who received placebo, a statistically significant 60% relative risk reduction. All patients in the trial continued on their background oral glucose-lowering medications.

Among the 48% of study patients who entered the study already using insulin as part of their usual regimen, 18% of those receiving empagliflozin required a significant increase in their insulin dosage (an increase of at least 20% from baseline) after 4 years. But among the control patients, 35% needed this level of insulin-dosage intensification, again a statistically significant difference that computed to a 58% relative reduction in the need for boosting the insulin dosage.

For both of these endpoints, the divergence between the empagliflozin and control arms became apparent within the first 6 months on treatment, and the between-group differences steadily increased during further follow-up. The analyses pooled the patients who received empagliflozin in the trial, which studied two different dosages of the drug.

Results add to the ‘risk and benefit conversation’

“This is one of the first studies to look at this question in a more granular fashion” in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving a drug from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, said Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. It provides “compelling” information to include when discussing oral diabetes-drug options with patients, he said in an interview.

Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes “often think about insulin” and their potential need to eventually start taking it, with the requirements it brings for training, monitoring, and drug delivery, along with the costs for insulin and glucose monitoring. “Patients are very attuned to potentially needing insulin and often ask about it. A reduced need for insulin will be an important part of the risk and benefit conversation” with patients about potential use of an SGLT2 inhibitor, he said.

Dr. Vaduganathan hypothesized that three factors could contribute to the impact of empagliflozin on insulin initiation and dosage level: a direct glycemic-control effect of the drug, the drug’s positive impact on overall well-being and function that could enhance patient movement, and the documented ability of treatment with empagliflozin and other drugs in its class to cut the rate of heart failure hospitalizations. This last feature is potentially relevant because insulin treatment often starts in patients with type 2 diabetes during a hospitalization, he noted.
 

Handelsman: Analysis shows no ‘spectacular effect’

The association of empagliflozin treatment with a reduced need for insulin seen in these data is consistent with expectations for patients with type 2 diabetes who receive an additional oral drug, commented Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of American in Tarzana, Calif. “In large part it has to do with patients on placebo having to get more insulin” because their additional oral-drug options were limited. Dr. Handelsman pointed out that during the period when the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial ran, from 2010-2015, fewer oral drugs were available than today, and clinicians in the study were encouraged to treat patients to their goal glycemia level according to local guidelines. In addition to a modest but useful glycemic control effect from SGLT2 inhibitors that, on average, cut hemoglobin A_1c levels by about 0.5%, they may also give a small boost to insulin sensitivity that can also defer the need to add or increase insulin. The level of insulin-treatment deference reported in the new analysis was “not a spectacular effect” he said in an interview.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study followed 7,020 patients at 590 sites in 42 countries for a median of 3.1 years. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke, and the results showed a statistically significant 14% relative risk reduction with empagliflozin treatment (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28 ). The results also showed that 12 weeks into the study, before patients could receive any additional drugs, HbA_1c levels averaged 0.54%-0.6% lower among the empagliflozin-treated patients than those in the placebo arm, with smaller between-group differences maintained through the balance of the study. At entry, more than half the enrolled patients were routinely treated with metformin, and close to half were receiving a sulfonyurea agent.

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME results were also notable as showing for the first time that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor drug produced a substantial decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, incident heart failure, and progression of renal dysfunction, effects subsequently confirmed and also found for other agents in this drug class.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME was funded in part by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Vaduganathan has been an advisor to Boehringer Ingelheim and to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to several drug companies including Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Vaduganathan M et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 30-OR.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even without GI symptoms, many patients with COVID-19 shed viral RNA in feces, suggesting that stool testing and prevention of fecal-oral transmission may be needed to combat the ongoing pandemic, according to investigators.

A meta-analysis of 29 studies showed that 12% of patients with COVID-19 developed nausea, diarrhea, or vomiting, while 41% shed viral RNA in feces, reported lead author Sravanthi Parasa, MD, of Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.Writing in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Parasa and colleagues emphasized that respiratory symptoms remain the predominant form of disease; however, GI symptoms can occur.

“In fact, the first reported patient with COVID-19 in the U.S. reported GI symptoms of loose bowel movements and abdominal discomfort,” the investigators wrote, noting that the patient went on to test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in both respiratory and stool specimens.

“This raises the question of inadvertent human-to-human transmission via the fecal route despite public health emphasis on droplet transmission and precautions for contact with respiratory secretions,” the investigators wrote.

To address this question, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 23 published and 6 preprint studies involving a total of 4,805 patients, all of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on PCR results from nasopharyngeal swabs. Dr. Parasa and colleagues noted that most of the studies “scored between 8 and 10 on the MINORS quality assessment,” suggesting moderate quality.

Pooled data from these studies showed that 4.6% of patients reported nausea or vomiting, while 7.4% reported diarrhea. Such symptoms may serve as an early warning flag for clinicians, the investigators noted.

“[T]he presence of GI symptoms may portend a worse outcome for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” they wrote, citing a study by Pan and colleagues, which found that GI symptoms were associated with lower rates of recovery and hospital discharge.

Regardless of GI symptoms, 40.5% of patients in the meta-analysis tested positive for viral RNA in feces (95% confidence interval, 27.4%-55.1%). Duration of viral shedding in feces lasted up to 11 days after symptom onset, or in a single-patient case study, 18 days after hospitalization.

The investigators called these duration figures “particularly concerning,” especially in light of a study published by Xiao and colleagues, which showed that 23.3% of patients with negative respiratory tests were still shedding live virus in feces.

“[T]he fecal-oral route of transmission could be an additional potential source of infection spread,” wrote Dr. Parasa and colleagues. “Our results also suggest that testing of the virus in feces ... could be helpful in disease monitoring and surveillance.”

David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said that the findings confirm what has been suspected for some time: GI disease is relatively common with COVID-19.

“The evidence is clear now that a sizable percentage of patients have GI symptoms,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

GI issues may precede respiratory signs, he added, so clinicians should be aware that nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea could be early indicators of COVID-19, and possibly, a worse outcome.

“The other highlight of this study is that stool shedding may be extended beyond respiratory shedding,” Dr. Johnson said.

He suggested that this finding could influence current CDC criteria, which define absence of infectious risk by two consecutive, negative nasopharyngeal swabs. Instead, fecal testing may be needed, he said, along with measures to prevent fecal-oral transmission.

Dr. Johnson expressed particular concern for risk of infection via toilet plume, in which toilet flushing aerosolizes viral particles.

“As much as people try to social distance by 6 feet – you can do that when you walk into a store, or a building, but you can’t necessarily do that when you walk into a public toilet, where the plume may have been expansive for a period of time,” he said. “That toilet may never really get cleaned to a high level of disinfection, and those droplets set up potential for fecal-oral spread.”

Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Fujifilm, Boston Scientific, and others. Dr. Johnson disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Parasa S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11335.

Even without GI symptoms, many patients with COVID-19 shed viral RNA in feces, suggesting that stool testing and prevention of fecal-oral transmission may be needed to combat the ongoing pandemic, according to investigators.

A meta-analysis of 29 studies showed that 12% of patients with COVID-19 developed nausea, diarrhea, or vomiting, while 41% shed viral RNA in feces, reported lead author Sravanthi Parasa, MD, of Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.Writing in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Parasa and colleagues emphasized that respiratory symptoms remain the predominant form of disease; however, GI symptoms can occur.

“In fact, the first reported patient with COVID-19 in the U.S. reported GI symptoms of loose bowel movements and abdominal discomfort,” the investigators wrote, noting that the patient went on to test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in both respiratory and stool specimens.

“This raises the question of inadvertent human-to-human transmission via the fecal route despite public health emphasis on droplet transmission and precautions for contact with respiratory secretions,” the investigators wrote.

To address this question, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 23 published and 6 preprint studies involving a total of 4,805 patients, all of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on PCR results from nasopharyngeal swabs. Dr. Parasa and colleagues noted that most of the studies “scored between 8 and 10 on the MINORS quality assessment,” suggesting moderate quality.

Pooled data from these studies showed that 4.6% of patients reported nausea or vomiting, while 7.4% reported diarrhea. Such symptoms may serve as an early warning flag for clinicians, the investigators noted.

“[T]he presence of GI symptoms may portend a worse outcome for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” they wrote, citing a study by Pan and colleagues, which found that GI symptoms were associated with lower rates of recovery and hospital discharge.

Regardless of GI symptoms, 40.5% of patients in the meta-analysis tested positive for viral RNA in feces (95% confidence interval, 27.4%-55.1%). Duration of viral shedding in feces lasted up to 11 days after symptom onset, or in a single-patient case study, 18 days after hospitalization.

The investigators called these duration figures “particularly concerning,” especially in light of a study published by Xiao and colleagues, which showed that 23.3% of patients with negative respiratory tests were still shedding live virus in feces.

“[T]he fecal-oral route of transmission could be an additional potential source of infection spread,” wrote Dr. Parasa and colleagues. “Our results also suggest that testing of the virus in feces ... could be helpful in disease monitoring and surveillance.”

David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said that the findings confirm what has been suspected for some time: GI disease is relatively common with COVID-19.

“The evidence is clear now that a sizable percentage of patients have GI symptoms,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

GI issues may precede respiratory signs, he added, so clinicians should be aware that nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea could be early indicators of COVID-19, and possibly, a worse outcome.

“The other highlight of this study is that stool shedding may be extended beyond respiratory shedding,” Dr. Johnson said.

He suggested that this finding could influence current CDC criteria, which define absence of infectious risk by two consecutive, negative nasopharyngeal swabs. Instead, fecal testing may be needed, he said, along with measures to prevent fecal-oral transmission.

Dr. Johnson expressed particular concern for risk of infection via toilet plume, in which toilet flushing aerosolizes viral particles.

“As much as people try to social distance by 6 feet – you can do that when you walk into a store, or a building, but you can’t necessarily do that when you walk into a public toilet, where the plume may have been expansive for a period of time,” he said. “That toilet may never really get cleaned to a high level of disinfection, and those droplets set up potential for fecal-oral spread.”

Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Fujifilm, Boston Scientific, and others. Dr. Johnson disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Parasa S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11335.

Even without GI symptoms, many patients with COVID-19 shed viral RNA in feces, suggesting that stool testing and prevention of fecal-oral transmission may be needed to combat the ongoing pandemic, according to investigators.

A meta-analysis of 29 studies showed that 12% of patients with COVID-19 developed nausea, diarrhea, or vomiting, while 41% shed viral RNA in feces, reported lead author Sravanthi Parasa, MD, of Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.Writing in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Parasa and colleagues emphasized that respiratory symptoms remain the predominant form of disease; however, GI symptoms can occur.

“In fact, the first reported patient with COVID-19 in the U.S. reported GI symptoms of loose bowel movements and abdominal discomfort,” the investigators wrote, noting that the patient went on to test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in both respiratory and stool specimens.

“This raises the question of inadvertent human-to-human transmission via the fecal route despite public health emphasis on droplet transmission and precautions for contact with respiratory secretions,” the investigators wrote.

To address this question, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 23 published and 6 preprint studies involving a total of 4,805 patients, all of whom tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on PCR results from nasopharyngeal swabs. Dr. Parasa and colleagues noted that most of the studies “scored between 8 and 10 on the MINORS quality assessment,” suggesting moderate quality.

Pooled data from these studies showed that 4.6% of patients reported nausea or vomiting, while 7.4% reported diarrhea. Such symptoms may serve as an early warning flag for clinicians, the investigators noted.

“[T]he presence of GI symptoms may portend a worse outcome for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” they wrote, citing a study by Pan and colleagues, which found that GI symptoms were associated with lower rates of recovery and hospital discharge.

Regardless of GI symptoms, 40.5% of patients in the meta-analysis tested positive for viral RNA in feces (95% confidence interval, 27.4%-55.1%). Duration of viral shedding in feces lasted up to 11 days after symptom onset, or in a single-patient case study, 18 days after hospitalization.

The investigators called these duration figures “particularly concerning,” especially in light of a study published by Xiao and colleagues, which showed that 23.3% of patients with negative respiratory tests were still shedding live virus in feces.

“[T]he fecal-oral route of transmission could be an additional potential source of infection spread,” wrote Dr. Parasa and colleagues. “Our results also suggest that testing of the virus in feces ... could be helpful in disease monitoring and surveillance.”

David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said that the findings confirm what has been suspected for some time: GI disease is relatively common with COVID-19.

“The evidence is clear now that a sizable percentage of patients have GI symptoms,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

GI issues may precede respiratory signs, he added, so clinicians should be aware that nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea could be early indicators of COVID-19, and possibly, a worse outcome.

“The other highlight of this study is that stool shedding may be extended beyond respiratory shedding,” Dr. Johnson said.

He suggested that this finding could influence current CDC criteria, which define absence of infectious risk by two consecutive, negative nasopharyngeal swabs. Instead, fecal testing may be needed, he said, along with measures to prevent fecal-oral transmission.

Dr. Johnson expressed particular concern for risk of infection via toilet plume, in which toilet flushing aerosolizes viral particles.

“As much as people try to social distance by 6 feet – you can do that when you walk into a store, or a building, but you can’t necessarily do that when you walk into a public toilet, where the plume may have been expansive for a period of time,” he said. “That toilet may never really get cleaned to a high level of disinfection, and those droplets set up potential for fecal-oral spread.”

Dr. Sharma disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Fujifilm, Boston Scientific, and others. Dr. Johnson disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Parasa S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11335.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Adjuvant gefitinib provides no overall survival (OS) benefit over standard chemotherapy for EGFR-mutant, resected, stage II-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to final results from the phase 3 ADJUVANT trial.

The median OS was 75.5 months in patients randomized to adjuvant gefitinib and 62.8 months in patients randomized to vinorelbine plus cisplatin.

Yi-Long Wu, MD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute in Guangzhou, China, reported these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Prior results from this trial had shown a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with gefitinib, but this did not translate to an OS benefit at the final analysis, Dr. Wu said.

He noted, however, that the median OS of 75.5 months in the gefitinib arm “was one of the best in resected EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, compared with historical data.”

The findings also suggest a possible benefit with at least 18 months of gefitinib and show that adjuvant EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) should be considered the optimal therapy to improve DFS and achieve potentially better OS in this setting, Dr. Wu said.
 

Study details and DFS

The ADJUVANT trial (NCT01405079) randomized 222 patients, aged 18-75 years, with EGFR-mutant, stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) NSCLC who had undergone complete resection. Patients were enrolled at 27 sites between September 2011 and April 2014.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 250 mg of gefitinib once daily for 24 months, or 25 mg/m² of vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 plus 75 mg/m² of cisplatin on day 1 every 3 weeks for 4 cycles.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 111 patients in each arm. The per-protocol population included 106 patients in the gefitinib arm and 87 patients in the chemotherapy arm.

Primary results from this trial showed a significant improvement in DFS with gefitinib (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:139-48). That improvement was maintained in the final analysis.

The median DFS was 30.8 months in the gefitinib arm and 19.8 months in the chemotherapy arm for both the ITT and per-protocol populations. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.56 (P = .001) in the ITT population and 0.51 (P < .001) in the per-protocol population.

In the ITT population, the 5-year DFS rates were 22.6% in the gefitinib arm and 23.2% in the chemotherapy arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year DFS rates were 22.6% and 22.8%, respectively.

OS results

The median OS was 75.5 months in the gefitinib arm and 62.8 months in the chemotherapy arm for both the ITT and per-protocol populations. The HR was 0.92 in both the ITT (P = .674) and per-protocol populations (P = .686).

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS rates were 53.2% in the gefitinib arm and 51.2% in the chemotherapy arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 53.2% and 50.7%, respectively.

Subgroup analyses by age, gender, lymph node status, and EGFR mutation showed trends toward improved OS with gefitinib, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The researchers conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the effect of subsequent treatment on patient outcomes. The analysis showed that patients who received gefitinib with subsequent EGFR-TKIs had the best responses and OS.

The median OS was not reached among patients who received gefitinib and subsequent EGFR-TKIs, whereas the median OS ranged from 15.6 months to 62.8 months in other groups. The shortest OS was observed in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy without subsequent therapy.

The duration of gefitinib treatment also appeared to affect OS. The median OS was 35.7 months in patients who received gefitinib for less than 18 months, and the median OS was not reached in patients who received gefitinib for 18 months or longer (HR, 0.38; P < .001).
 

Implications and potential next steps

Despite the lack of OS improvement with gefitinib, “all of the patients on this study did much, much better than historical non–small cell lung cancer not specified by the EGFR mutation, with 70 months median survival compared to 35 months median survival for N2-positive disease,” said invited discussant Christopher G. Azzoli, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Lifespan Cancer Institute at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

“But you can’t avoid noticing how the curves come back together in terms of disease-free survival when your effective treatment is limited to 24 months,” he added.

An apparent risk of late brain recurrence in the gefitinib arm is also a concern, Dr. Azzoli said. “So ... longer duration of treatment with a drug that has better control of CNS [central nervous system] disease, such as osimertinib, may improve both DFS and OS,” he added.

Only about 50% of patients in the chemotherapy arm received a TKI at recurrence. The post hoc analysis showing that TKI recipients had the best outcomes raises the question of whether “the survival benefit could be conferred by delivering a superior drug merely at recurrence, or is there benefit to earlier delivery of an effective drug,” Dr. Azzoli said.

Given the high cost of continuous therapy, biomarker refinement could help improve treatment decision-making, he said, noting that “early testing of blood DNA to detect cancer in the body as minimal residual disease is showing promise,” and that many phase 3 studies of EGFR-TKIs are ongoing.

The current trial was sponsored by the Guangdong Association of Clinical Trials. Dr. Wu disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/China, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Azzoli reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wu Y et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9005.

Adjuvant gefitinib provides no overall survival (OS) benefit over standard chemotherapy for EGFR-mutant, resected, stage II-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to final results from the phase 3 ADJUVANT trial.

The median OS was 75.5 months in patients randomized to adjuvant gefitinib and 62.8 months in patients randomized to vinorelbine plus cisplatin.

Yi-Long Wu, MD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute in Guangzhou, China, reported these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Prior results from this trial had shown a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with gefitinib, but this did not translate to an OS benefit at the final analysis, Dr. Wu said.

He noted, however, that the median OS of 75.5 months in the gefitinib arm “was one of the best in resected EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, compared with historical data.”

The findings also suggest a possible benefit with at least 18 months of gefitinib and show that adjuvant EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) should be considered the optimal therapy to improve DFS and achieve potentially better OS in this setting, Dr. Wu said.
 

Study details and DFS

The ADJUVANT trial (NCT01405079) randomized 222 patients, aged 18-75 years, with EGFR-mutant, stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) NSCLC who had undergone complete resection. Patients were enrolled at 27 sites between September 2011 and April 2014.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 250 mg of gefitinib once daily for 24 months, or 25 mg/m² of vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 plus 75 mg/m² of cisplatin on day 1 every 3 weeks for 4 cycles.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 111 patients in each arm. The per-protocol population included 106 patients in the gefitinib arm and 87 patients in the chemotherapy arm.

Primary results from this trial showed a significant improvement in DFS with gefitinib (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:139-48). That improvement was maintained in the final analysis.

The median DFS was 30.8 months in the gefitinib arm and 19.8 months in the chemotherapy arm for both the ITT and per-protocol populations. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.56 (P = .001) in the ITT population and 0.51 (P < .001) in the per-protocol population.

In the ITT population, the 5-year DFS rates were 22.6% in the gefitinib arm and 23.2% in the chemotherapy arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year DFS rates were 22.6% and 22.8%, respectively.

OS results

The median OS was 75.5 months in the gefitinib arm and 62.8 months in the chemotherapy arm for both the ITT and per-protocol populations. The HR was 0.92 in both the ITT (P = .674) and per-protocol populations (P = .686).

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS rates were 53.2% in the gefitinib arm and 51.2% in the chemotherapy arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 53.2% and 50.7%, respectively.

Subgroup analyses by age, gender, lymph node status, and EGFR mutation showed trends toward improved OS with gefitinib, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The researchers conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the effect of subsequent treatment on patient outcomes. The analysis showed that patients who received gefitinib with subsequent EGFR-TKIs had the best responses and OS.

The median OS was not reached among patients who received gefitinib and subsequent EGFR-TKIs, whereas the median OS ranged from 15.6 months to 62.8 months in other groups. The shortest OS was observed in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy without subsequent therapy.

The duration of gefitinib treatment also appeared to affect OS. The median OS was 35.7 months in patients who received gefitinib for less than 18 months, and the median OS was not reached in patients who received gefitinib for 18 months or longer (HR, 0.38; P < .001).
 

Implications and potential next steps

Despite the lack of OS improvement with gefitinib, “all of the patients on this study did much, much better than historical non–small cell lung cancer not specified by the EGFR mutation, with 70 months median survival compared to 35 months median survival for N2-positive disease,” said invited discussant Christopher G. Azzoli, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Lifespan Cancer Institute at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

“But you can’t avoid noticing how the curves come back together in terms of disease-free survival when your effective treatment is limited to 24 months,” he added.

An apparent risk of late brain recurrence in the gefitinib arm is also a concern, Dr. Azzoli said. “So ... longer duration of treatment with a drug that has better control of CNS [central nervous system] disease, such as osimertinib, may improve both DFS and OS,” he added.

Only about 50% of patients in the chemotherapy arm received a TKI at recurrence. The post hoc analysis showing that TKI recipients had the best outcomes raises the question of whether “the survival benefit could be conferred by delivering a superior drug merely at recurrence, or is there benefit to earlier delivery of an effective drug,” Dr. Azzoli said.

Given the high cost of continuous therapy, biomarker refinement could help improve treatment decision-making, he said, noting that “early testing of blood DNA to detect cancer in the body as minimal residual disease is showing promise,” and that many phase 3 studies of EGFR-TKIs are ongoing.

The current trial was sponsored by the Guangdong Association of Clinical Trials. Dr. Wu disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/China, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Azzoli reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wu Y et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9005.

Adjuvant gefitinib provides no overall survival (OS) benefit over standard chemotherapy for EGFR-mutant, resected, stage II-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to final results from the phase 3 ADJUVANT trial.

The median OS was 75.5 months in patients randomized to adjuvant gefitinib and 62.8 months in patients randomized to vinorelbine plus cisplatin.

Yi-Long Wu, MD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute in Guangzhou, China, reported these results as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

Prior results from this trial had shown a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with gefitinib, but this did not translate to an OS benefit at the final analysis, Dr. Wu said.

He noted, however, that the median OS of 75.5 months in the gefitinib arm “was one of the best in resected EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer, compared with historical data.”

The findings also suggest a possible benefit with at least 18 months of gefitinib and show that adjuvant EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) should be considered the optimal therapy to improve DFS and achieve potentially better OS in this setting, Dr. Wu said.
 

Study details and DFS

The ADJUVANT trial (NCT01405079) randomized 222 patients, aged 18-75 years, with EGFR-mutant, stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) NSCLC who had undergone complete resection. Patients were enrolled at 27 sites between September 2011 and April 2014.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 250 mg of gefitinib once daily for 24 months, or 25 mg/m² of vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 plus 75 mg/m² of cisplatin on day 1 every 3 weeks for 4 cycles.

The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 111 patients in each arm. The per-protocol population included 106 patients in the gefitinib arm and 87 patients in the chemotherapy arm.

Primary results from this trial showed a significant improvement in DFS with gefitinib (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19[1]:139-48). That improvement was maintained in the final analysis.

The median DFS was 30.8 months in the gefitinib arm and 19.8 months in the chemotherapy arm for both the ITT and per-protocol populations. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.56 (P = .001) in the ITT population and 0.51 (P < .001) in the per-protocol population.

In the ITT population, the 5-year DFS rates were 22.6% in the gefitinib arm and 23.2% in the chemotherapy arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year DFS rates were 22.6% and 22.8%, respectively.

OS results

The median OS was 75.5 months in the gefitinib arm and 62.8 months in the chemotherapy arm for both the ITT and per-protocol populations. The HR was 0.92 in both the ITT (P = .674) and per-protocol populations (P = .686).

In the ITT population, the 5-year OS rates were 53.2% in the gefitinib arm and 51.2% in the chemotherapy arm. In the per-protocol population, the 5-year OS rates were 53.2% and 50.7%, respectively.

Subgroup analyses by age, gender, lymph node status, and EGFR mutation showed trends toward improved OS with gefitinib, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The researchers conducted a post hoc analysis to assess the effect of subsequent treatment on patient outcomes. The analysis showed that patients who received gefitinib with subsequent EGFR-TKIs had the best responses and OS.

The median OS was not reached among patients who received gefitinib and subsequent EGFR-TKIs, whereas the median OS ranged from 15.6 months to 62.8 months in other groups. The shortest OS was observed in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy without subsequent therapy.

The duration of gefitinib treatment also appeared to affect OS. The median OS was 35.7 months in patients who received gefitinib for less than 18 months, and the median OS was not reached in patients who received gefitinib for 18 months or longer (HR, 0.38; P < .001).
 

Implications and potential next steps

Despite the lack of OS improvement with gefitinib, “all of the patients on this study did much, much better than historical non–small cell lung cancer not specified by the EGFR mutation, with 70 months median survival compared to 35 months median survival for N2-positive disease,” said invited discussant Christopher G. Azzoli, MD, director of thoracic oncology at Lifespan Cancer Institute at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

“But you can’t avoid noticing how the curves come back together in terms of disease-free survival when your effective treatment is limited to 24 months,” he added.

An apparent risk of late brain recurrence in the gefitinib arm is also a concern, Dr. Azzoli said. “So ... longer duration of treatment with a drug that has better control of CNS [central nervous system] disease, such as osimertinib, may improve both DFS and OS,” he added.

Only about 50% of patients in the chemotherapy arm received a TKI at recurrence. The post hoc analysis showing that TKI recipients had the best outcomes raises the question of whether “the survival benefit could be conferred by delivering a superior drug merely at recurrence, or is there benefit to earlier delivery of an effective drug,” Dr. Azzoli said.

Given the high cost of continuous therapy, biomarker refinement could help improve treatment decision-making, he said, noting that “early testing of blood DNA to detect cancer in the body as minimal residual disease is showing promise,” and that many phase 3 studies of EGFR-TKIs are ongoing.

The current trial was sponsored by the Guangdong Association of Clinical Trials. Dr. Wu disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/China, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Azzoli reported having no disclosures.