Federal Practitioner

The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.

Patients were most infectious at the onset of symptoms, when they spiked a fever and started coughing, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.

Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.

Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.

The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.

Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.

It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.

[email protected]

The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.

Patients were most infectious at the onset of symptoms, when they spiked a fever and started coughing, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.

Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.

Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.

The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.

Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.

It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.

[email protected]

The transmission rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 1%-5% among 38,000 Chinese people in close contact with infected patients, according to the chief epidemiologist of the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, Zunyou Wu, MD, PhD, who gave an update on the epidemic at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The rate of spread to family members – the driver of the infection in China – was 10% early in the outbreak, but fell to 3% with quicker recognition and isolation. The overall numbers are lower than might have been expected, and an important insight for clinicians trying to contain the outbreak in the United States.

Patients were most infectious at the onset of symptoms, when they spiked a fever and started coughing, but their ability to spread the infection dropped after that, Dr. Wu and others said at a special COVID-19 session at the meeting, which was scheduled to be in Boston, but was held online instead because of concerns about spreading the virus. The session has been posted.

Transmission from presymptomatic people is rare. Shedding persists to some degree for 7-12 days in mild/moderate cases, but 2 weeks or more in severe cases.

Dr. Wu said the numbers in China are moving in the right direction, which means that containment efforts there have worked.

The virus emerged in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in central China, in connection with a wildlife food market in December 2019. Bats are thought to be the reservoir, with perhaps an intermediate step between civet cats and raccoon dogs. Officials shut down the market.

Essentially, the entire population of China, more than a billion people, was told to stay home for 10 days to interrupt the transmission cycle after the virus spread throughout the country in a few weeks, and almost 60 million people in Hubei were put behind a cordon sanitaire, where they have been for 50 days and will remain “for a while,” Dr. Wu said.

It’s led to a steep drop in new cases and deaths in China since mid-February; both are now more common outside China than inside, and international numbers are lower than they were at the peak in China.

[email protected]

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”

Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”

“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.

Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.

Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”

[email protected]

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”

Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”

“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.

Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.

Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”

[email protected]

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are taking the precautionary step of canceling or postponing advisory committee meetings and limiting staff travel in an effort to help curb the spread of the COVID-19.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

“The outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, COVID-19, that started in China is spreading to other countries, including the United States,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a memo to CDER staff. “As a precaution, FDA is canceling foreign official agency travel and limiting domestic travel to mission critical only, effective immediately and through April.”

Additionally, the memo notes that “CDER-organized external meetings, conferences, and workshops will be postponed or canceled from March 10 through April.”

“To mitigate the impact on our work, I encourage you to hold meetings with external stakeholders through teleconference, when possible,” she wrote.

Thus far, only a few CDER events on the FDA’s meeting webpage are listed as being canceled or postponed. Some of the affected meetings include a March 10 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for stimulant-use disorder, a March 11 meeting of the Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee, and a March 30 public meeting on patient-focused drug development for vitiligo, all of which are postponed until further notice. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also has postponed until further notice its U.S.–Japan Cellular and Gene Therapy Conference, originally scheduled for March 12.

Dr. Woodcock also noted in the memo that in relation to inspections, “we plan to use technology and established agreements with our foreign counterparts to minimize disruptions to the drug supply chain and to applications under review, so that Americans can continue to get their medications.”

[email protected]

The American College of Physicians has recently joined the list of medical-specialty organizations to have canceled an upcoming meeting because of the ongoing COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) outbreak.

The ACP’s Internal Medicine 2020, which had been scheduled to take place in Los Angeles on April 23-25, will no longer take place “due to health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus,” according to a statement from the organization.

“ACP’s decision is based on recent reports from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of rapidly escalating concerns about the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and in recognition of the vital role of internal medicine physicians in diagnosing, managing, and caring for their patients and communities on the front lines,” according to the announcement.

The ACP is offering a refund to those who have already registered to attend the meeting.

The organization has included responses on its website to a number of frequently asked questions related to the cancellation. One response notes that ACP is offering paid registrants an opportunity to apply their meeting registration credit toward a 30-hour CME package, “which will be made available as soon as possible.” This package, named ACP CME 30, “will comprise curated, online lectures originally scheduled for live presentation at Internal Medicine Meeting 2020.”

[email protected]

The American College of Physicians has recently joined the list of medical-specialty organizations to have canceled an upcoming meeting because of the ongoing COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) outbreak.

The ACP’s Internal Medicine 2020, which had been scheduled to take place in Los Angeles on April 23-25, will no longer take place “due to health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus,” according to a statement from the organization.

“ACP’s decision is based on recent reports from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of rapidly escalating concerns about the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and in recognition of the vital role of internal medicine physicians in diagnosing, managing, and caring for their patients and communities on the front lines,” according to the announcement.

The ACP is offering a refund to those who have already registered to attend the meeting.

The organization has included responses on its website to a number of frequently asked questions related to the cancellation. One response notes that ACP is offering paid registrants an opportunity to apply their meeting registration credit toward a 30-hour CME package, “which will be made available as soon as possible.” This package, named ACP CME 30, “will comprise curated, online lectures originally scheduled for live presentation at Internal Medicine Meeting 2020.”

[email protected]

The American College of Physicians has recently joined the list of medical-specialty organizations to have canceled an upcoming meeting because of the ongoing COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) outbreak.

The ACP’s Internal Medicine 2020, which had been scheduled to take place in Los Angeles on April 23-25, will no longer take place “due to health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus,” according to a statement from the organization.

“ACP’s decision is based on recent reports from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of rapidly escalating concerns about the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and in recognition of the vital role of internal medicine physicians in diagnosing, managing, and caring for their patients and communities on the front lines,” according to the announcement.

The ACP is offering a refund to those who have already registered to attend the meeting.

The organization has included responses on its website to a number of frequently asked questions related to the cancellation. One response notes that ACP is offering paid registrants an opportunity to apply their meeting registration credit toward a 30-hour CME package, “which will be made available as soon as possible.” This package, named ACP CME 30, “will comprise curated, online lectures originally scheduled for live presentation at Internal Medicine Meeting 2020.”

[email protected]

A patient with HIV remission induced by stem cell transplantation continues to be disease free at the 30-month mark.

The individual, referred to as the London patient, received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for stage IVB Hodgkin lymphoma. The transplant donor was homozygous for the CCR5 delta-32 mutation, which confers immunity to HIV because there’s no point of entry for the virus into immune cells.

After extensive sampling of various tissues, including gut, lymph node, blood, semen, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), Ravindra Kumar Gupta, MD, PhD, and colleagues found no detectable virus that was competent to replicate. However, they reported that the testing did detect some “fossilized” remnants of HIV DNA persisting in certain tissues.

The results were shared in a video presentation of the research during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers chose to hold a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

The London patient’s HIV status had been reported the previous year at CROI 2019, but only blood samples were used in that analysis.

In a commentary accompanying the simultaneously published study in the Lancet, Jennifer Zerbato, PhD, and Sharon Lewin, FRACP, PHD, FAAHMS, asked: “A key question now for the area of HIV cure is how soon can one know if someone has been cured of HIV?

“We will need more than a handful of patients cured of HIV to really understand the duration of follow-up needed and the likelihood of an unexpected late rebound in virus replication,” continued Dr. Zerbato, of the University of Melbourne, and Dr. Lewin, of the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Monash University, also in Melbourne.

In their ongoing analysis of data from the London patient, Dr. Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge (England), and associates constructed a mathematical model that maps the probability for lifetime remission or cure of HIV against several factors, including the degree of chimerism achieved with the stem cell transplant.

In this model, when chimerism reaches 80% in total HIV target cells, the probability of remission for life is 98%; when donor chimerism reaches 90%, the probability of lifetime remission is greater than 99%. Peripheral T-cell chimerism in the London patient has held steady at 99%.

Dr. Gupta and associates obtained some testing opportunistically: A PET-CT scan revealed an axillary lymph node that was biopsied after it was found to have avid radiotracer uptake. Similarly, the CSF sample was obtained in the course of a work-up for some neurologic symptoms that the London patient was having.

In contrast to the first patient who achieved ongoing HIV remission from a pair of stem cell transplants received over 13 years ago – the Berlin patient – the London patient did not receive whole-body radiation, but rather underwent a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. The London patient experienced a bout of gut graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) about 2 months after his transplant, but has been free of GVHD in the interval. He hasn’t taken cytotoxic agents or any GVHD prophylaxis since 6 months post transplant.

Though there’s no sign of HIV that’s competent to replicate, “the London patient has shown somewhat slow CD4 reconstitution,” said Dr. Gupta and coauthors in discussing the results.

The patient had a reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) about 21 months after analytic treatment interruption (ATI) of antiretroviral therapy that was managed without any specific treatment, but he hasn’t experienced any opportunistic infections. However, his CD4 count didn’t rebound to pretransplant levels until 28 months after ATI. At that point, his CD4 count was 430 cells per mcL, or 23.5% of total T cells. The CD4:CD8 ratio was 0.86; normal range is 1.5-2.5.

The researchers used quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) to look for packaging site and envelope (env) DNA fragments, and droplet digital PCR to quantify HIV-1 DNA.

The patient’s HIV-1 plasma load measured at 30 months post ATI on an ultrasensitive assay was below the lower limit of detection (less than 1 copy per mL). Semen viremia measured at 21 months was also below the lower limit of detection, as was CSF measured at 25 months.

Samples were taken from the patient’s rectum, cecum, sigmoid colon, and terminal ileum during a colonoscopy conducted 22 months post ATI; all tested negative for HIV DNA via droplet digital PCR.

The lymph node had large numbers of EBV-positive cells and was positive for HIV-1 env and long-terminal repeat by double-drop PCR, but no integrase DNA was detected. Additionally, no intact proviral DNA was found on assay.

Dr. Gupta and associates speculated that “EBV reactivation could have triggered EBV-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses and proliferation, potentially including CD4 T cells containing HIV-1 DNA.” Supporting this hypothesis, EBV-specific CD8 T-cell responses in peripheral blood were “robust,” and the researchers also saw some CD4 response.

“Similar to the Berlin patient, highly sensitive tests showed very low levels of so-called fossilized HIV-1 DNA in some tissue samples from the London patient. Residual HIV-1 DNA and axillary lymph node tissue could represent a defective clone that expanded during hyperplasia within the lymph note sampled,” noted Dr. Gupta and coauthors.

Responses of CD4 and CD8 T cells to HIV have also remained below the limit of detection, though cytomegalovirus-specific responses persist in the London patient.

As with the Berlin patient, standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing has remained positive in the London patient. “Standard ELISA testing, therefore, cannot be used as a marker for cure, although more work needs to be done to assess the role of detuned low-avidity antibody assays in defining cure,” noted Dr. Gupta and associates.

The ongoing follow-up plan for the London patient is to obtain viral load testing twice yearly up to 5 years post ATI, and then obtain yearly tests for a total of 10 years. Ongoing testing will confirm the investigators’ belief that “these findings probably represent the second recorded HIV-1 cure after CCR5 delta-32/delta-32 allo-HSCT, with evidence of residual low-level HIV-1 DNA.”

Dr. Zerbato and Dr. Lewin advised cautious optimism and ongoing surveillance: “In view of the many cells sampled in this case, and the absence of any intact virus, is the London patient truly cured? The additional data provided in this follow-up case report is certainly exciting and encouraging but, in the end, only time will tell.”

Dr. Gupta reported being a consultant for ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences; several coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The work was funded by amfAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Lewin reported grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institutes of Health, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, Leidos, the Wellcome Trust, the Australian Centre for HIV and Hepatitis Virology Research, and the Melbourne HIV Cure Consortium. Dr. Zerbato reported grants from the Melbourne HIV Cure Consortium,

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gupta R et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1016/ S2352-3018(20)30069-2.

A patient with HIV remission induced by stem cell transplantation continues to be disease free at the 30-month mark.

The individual, referred to as the London patient, received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for stage IVB Hodgkin lymphoma. The transplant donor was homozygous for the CCR5 delta-32 mutation, which confers immunity to HIV because there’s no point of entry for the virus into immune cells.

After extensive sampling of various tissues, including gut, lymph node, blood, semen, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), Ravindra Kumar Gupta, MD, PhD, and colleagues found no detectable virus that was competent to replicate. However, they reported that the testing did detect some “fossilized” remnants of HIV DNA persisting in certain tissues.

The results were shared in a video presentation of the research during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers chose to hold a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

The London patient’s HIV status had been reported the previous year at CROI 2019, but only blood samples were used in that analysis.

In a commentary accompanying the simultaneously published study in the Lancet, Jennifer Zerbato, PhD, and Sharon Lewin, FRACP, PHD, FAAHMS, asked: “A key question now for the area of HIV cure is how soon can one know if someone has been cured of HIV?

“We will need more than a handful of patients cured of HIV to really understand the duration of follow-up needed and the likelihood of an unexpected late rebound in virus replication,” continued Dr. Zerbato, of the University of Melbourne, and Dr. Lewin, of the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Monash University, also in Melbourne.

In their ongoing analysis of data from the London patient, Dr. Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge (England), and associates constructed a mathematical model that maps the probability for lifetime remission or cure of HIV against several factors, including the degree of chimerism achieved with the stem cell transplant.

In this model, when chimerism reaches 80% in total HIV target cells, the probability of remission for life is 98%; when donor chimerism reaches 90%, the probability of lifetime remission is greater than 99%. Peripheral T-cell chimerism in the London patient has held steady at 99%.

Dr. Gupta and associates obtained some testing opportunistically: A PET-CT scan revealed an axillary lymph node that was biopsied after it was found to have avid radiotracer uptake. Similarly, the CSF sample was obtained in the course of a work-up for some neurologic symptoms that the London patient was having.

In contrast to the first patient who achieved ongoing HIV remission from a pair of stem cell transplants received over 13 years ago – the Berlin patient – the London patient did not receive whole-body radiation, but rather underwent a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. The London patient experienced a bout of gut graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) about 2 months after his transplant, but has been free of GVHD in the interval. He hasn’t taken cytotoxic agents or any GVHD prophylaxis since 6 months post transplant.

Though there’s no sign of HIV that’s competent to replicate, “the London patient has shown somewhat slow CD4 reconstitution,” said Dr. Gupta and coauthors in discussing the results.

The patient had a reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) about 21 months after analytic treatment interruption (ATI) of antiretroviral therapy that was managed without any specific treatment, but he hasn’t experienced any opportunistic infections. However, his CD4 count didn’t rebound to pretransplant levels until 28 months after ATI. At that point, his CD4 count was 430 cells per mcL, or 23.5% of total T cells. The CD4:CD8 ratio was 0.86; normal range is 1.5-2.5.

The researchers used quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) to look for packaging site and envelope (env) DNA fragments, and droplet digital PCR to quantify HIV-1 DNA.

The patient’s HIV-1 plasma load measured at 30 months post ATI on an ultrasensitive assay was below the lower limit of detection (less than 1 copy per mL). Semen viremia measured at 21 months was also below the lower limit of detection, as was CSF measured at 25 months.

Samples were taken from the patient’s rectum, cecum, sigmoid colon, and terminal ileum during a colonoscopy conducted 22 months post ATI; all tested negative for HIV DNA via droplet digital PCR.

The lymph node had large numbers of EBV-positive cells and was positive for HIV-1 env and long-terminal repeat by double-drop PCR, but no integrase DNA was detected. Additionally, no intact proviral DNA was found on assay.

Dr. Gupta and associates speculated that “EBV reactivation could have triggered EBV-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses and proliferation, potentially including CD4 T cells containing HIV-1 DNA.” Supporting this hypothesis, EBV-specific CD8 T-cell responses in peripheral blood were “robust,” and the researchers also saw some CD4 response.

“Similar to the Berlin patient, highly sensitive tests showed very low levels of so-called fossilized HIV-1 DNA in some tissue samples from the London patient. Residual HIV-1 DNA and axillary lymph node tissue could represent a defective clone that expanded during hyperplasia within the lymph note sampled,” noted Dr. Gupta and coauthors.

Responses of CD4 and CD8 T cells to HIV have also remained below the limit of detection, though cytomegalovirus-specific responses persist in the London patient.

As with the Berlin patient, standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing has remained positive in the London patient. “Standard ELISA testing, therefore, cannot be used as a marker for cure, although more work needs to be done to assess the role of detuned low-avidity antibody assays in defining cure,” noted Dr. Gupta and associates.

The ongoing follow-up plan for the London patient is to obtain viral load testing twice yearly up to 5 years post ATI, and then obtain yearly tests for a total of 10 years. Ongoing testing will confirm the investigators’ belief that “these findings probably represent the second recorded HIV-1 cure after CCR5 delta-32/delta-32 allo-HSCT, with evidence of residual low-level HIV-1 DNA.”

Dr. Zerbato and Dr. Lewin advised cautious optimism and ongoing surveillance: “In view of the many cells sampled in this case, and the absence of any intact virus, is the London patient truly cured? The additional data provided in this follow-up case report is certainly exciting and encouraging but, in the end, only time will tell.”

Dr. Gupta reported being a consultant for ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences; several coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The work was funded by amfAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Lewin reported grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institutes of Health, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, Leidos, the Wellcome Trust, the Australian Centre for HIV and Hepatitis Virology Research, and the Melbourne HIV Cure Consortium. Dr. Zerbato reported grants from the Melbourne HIV Cure Consortium,

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gupta R et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1016/ S2352-3018(20)30069-2.

A patient with HIV remission induced by stem cell transplantation continues to be disease free at the 30-month mark.

The individual, referred to as the London patient, received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) for stage IVB Hodgkin lymphoma. The transplant donor was homozygous for the CCR5 delta-32 mutation, which confers immunity to HIV because there’s no point of entry for the virus into immune cells.

After extensive sampling of various tissues, including gut, lymph node, blood, semen, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), Ravindra Kumar Gupta, MD, PhD, and colleagues found no detectable virus that was competent to replicate. However, they reported that the testing did detect some “fossilized” remnants of HIV DNA persisting in certain tissues.

The results were shared in a video presentation of the research during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, which was presented online this year. CROI organizers chose to hold a virtual meeting because of concerns about the spread of COVID-19.

The London patient’s HIV status had been reported the previous year at CROI 2019, but only blood samples were used in that analysis.

In a commentary accompanying the simultaneously published study in the Lancet, Jennifer Zerbato, PhD, and Sharon Lewin, FRACP, PHD, FAAHMS, asked: “A key question now for the area of HIV cure is how soon can one know if someone has been cured of HIV?

“We will need more than a handful of patients cured of HIV to really understand the duration of follow-up needed and the likelihood of an unexpected late rebound in virus replication,” continued Dr. Zerbato, of the University of Melbourne, and Dr. Lewin, of the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Monash University, also in Melbourne.

In their ongoing analysis of data from the London patient, Dr. Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge (England), and associates constructed a mathematical model that maps the probability for lifetime remission or cure of HIV against several factors, including the degree of chimerism achieved with the stem cell transplant.

In this model, when chimerism reaches 80% in total HIV target cells, the probability of remission for life is 98%; when donor chimerism reaches 90%, the probability of lifetime remission is greater than 99%. Peripheral T-cell chimerism in the London patient has held steady at 99%.

Dr. Gupta and associates obtained some testing opportunistically: A PET-CT scan revealed an axillary lymph node that was biopsied after it was found to have avid radiotracer uptake. Similarly, the CSF sample was obtained in the course of a work-up for some neurologic symptoms that the London patient was having.

In contrast to the first patient who achieved ongoing HIV remission from a pair of stem cell transplants received over 13 years ago – the Berlin patient – the London patient did not receive whole-body radiation, but rather underwent a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. The London patient experienced a bout of gut graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) about 2 months after his transplant, but has been free of GVHD in the interval. He hasn’t taken cytotoxic agents or any GVHD prophylaxis since 6 months post transplant.

Though there’s no sign of HIV that’s competent to replicate, “the London patient has shown somewhat slow CD4 reconstitution,” said Dr. Gupta and coauthors in discussing the results.

The patient had a reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) about 21 months after analytic treatment interruption (ATI) of antiretroviral therapy that was managed without any specific treatment, but he hasn’t experienced any opportunistic infections. However, his CD4 count didn’t rebound to pretransplant levels until 28 months after ATI. At that point, his CD4 count was 430 cells per mcL, or 23.5% of total T cells. The CD4:CD8 ratio was 0.86; normal range is 1.5-2.5.

The researchers used quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) to look for packaging site and envelope (env) DNA fragments, and droplet digital PCR to quantify HIV-1 DNA.

The patient’s HIV-1 plasma load measured at 30 months post ATI on an ultrasensitive assay was below the lower limit of detection (less than 1 copy per mL). Semen viremia measured at 21 months was also below the lower limit of detection, as was CSF measured at 25 months.

Samples were taken from the patient’s rectum, cecum, sigmoid colon, and terminal ileum during a colonoscopy conducted 22 months post ATI; all tested negative for HIV DNA via droplet digital PCR.

The lymph node had large numbers of EBV-positive cells and was positive for HIV-1 env and long-terminal repeat by double-drop PCR, but no integrase DNA was detected. Additionally, no intact proviral DNA was found on assay.

Dr. Gupta and associates speculated that “EBV reactivation could have triggered EBV-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses and proliferation, potentially including CD4 T cells containing HIV-1 DNA.” Supporting this hypothesis, EBV-specific CD8 T-cell responses in peripheral blood were “robust,” and the researchers also saw some CD4 response.

“Similar to the Berlin patient, highly sensitive tests showed very low levels of so-called fossilized HIV-1 DNA in some tissue samples from the London patient. Residual HIV-1 DNA and axillary lymph node tissue could represent a defective clone that expanded during hyperplasia within the lymph note sampled,” noted Dr. Gupta and coauthors.

Responses of CD4 and CD8 T cells to HIV have also remained below the limit of detection, though cytomegalovirus-specific responses persist in the London patient.

As with the Berlin patient, standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing has remained positive in the London patient. “Standard ELISA testing, therefore, cannot be used as a marker for cure, although more work needs to be done to assess the role of detuned low-avidity antibody assays in defining cure,” noted Dr. Gupta and associates.

The ongoing follow-up plan for the London patient is to obtain viral load testing twice yearly up to 5 years post ATI, and then obtain yearly tests for a total of 10 years. Ongoing testing will confirm the investigators’ belief that “these findings probably represent the second recorded HIV-1 cure after CCR5 delta-32/delta-32 allo-HSCT, with evidence of residual low-level HIV-1 DNA.”

Dr. Zerbato and Dr. Lewin advised cautious optimism and ongoing surveillance: “In view of the many cells sampled in this case, and the absence of any intact virus, is the London patient truly cured? The additional data provided in this follow-up case report is certainly exciting and encouraging but, in the end, only time will tell.”

Dr. Gupta reported being a consultant for ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences; several coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The work was funded by amfAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Lewin reported grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the National Institutes of Health, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, Leidos, the Wellcome Trust, the Australian Centre for HIV and Hepatitis Virology Research, and the Melbourne HIV Cure Consortium. Dr. Zerbato reported grants from the Melbourne HIV Cure Consortium,

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gupta R et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 10. doi: 10.1016/ S2352-3018(20)30069-2.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Current trends in the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States suggest CRC will become a disease that largely affects young and middle-aged adults, according to a report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

As the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and with modifiable risk factors accounting for over 50% of cases and deaths, CRC is largely a preventable disease, explained study author Rebecca L. Siegel, of the American Cancer Society, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, CRC incidence dropped by 3.3% per year from 2011 through 2016 among individuals aged 65 years or older, but the opposite was observed for those aged 50-64 years, with rates increasing by 1% per year. The increase was even greater for those younger than 50 years, with an increase of 2.2% per year.

The CRC incidence from 2012 through 2016 was highest among Alaska Natives (89 cases per 100,000 persons) and lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (30 cases per 100,000 persons).

“CRC has been the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Alaska Natives since the early 1970s for reasons that are unknown but may include a higher prevalence of risk factors,” the investigators wrote.

The risk of developing CRC is related to several factors, including obesity, vitamin D deficiency, diabetes, smoking, and other dietary factors, the team further explained.

Among those aged 65 years or older, CRC death rates decreased by 3% per year from 2008 through 2017. For those aged 50-64 years, death rates dropped by 0.6% per year. In contrast, death rates rose by 1.3% per year for those younger than 50 years.

“The uptick in young adults, which is most rapid among non-Hispanic whites (2% per year), began around 2004 and was preceded by declines of 1% to 2% per year since at least 1975,” the investigators wrote.

The reduction in incidence and mortality among older adults is partially attributable to higher uptake of CRC screening. According to recent data, CRC screening rates were lower for those aged 50-64 years compared with individuals aged 65 years and older.

Based on current recommendations from the American Cancer Society, CRC screening should begin at age 45, with some higher-risk patients starting at age 40.

“Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults,” the investigators concluded.

The authors disclosed financial affiliations with the American Cancer Society, which funded the study, as well as Array Biopharma, Bayer, RGenix, Tesaro, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601.

Current trends in the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States suggest CRC will become a disease that largely affects young and middle-aged adults, according to a report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

As the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and with modifiable risk factors accounting for over 50% of cases and deaths, CRC is largely a preventable disease, explained study author Rebecca L. Siegel, of the American Cancer Society, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, CRC incidence dropped by 3.3% per year from 2011 through 2016 among individuals aged 65 years or older, but the opposite was observed for those aged 50-64 years, with rates increasing by 1% per year. The increase was even greater for those younger than 50 years, with an increase of 2.2% per year.

The CRC incidence from 2012 through 2016 was highest among Alaska Natives (89 cases per 100,000 persons) and lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (30 cases per 100,000 persons).

“CRC has been the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Alaska Natives since the early 1970s for reasons that are unknown but may include a higher prevalence of risk factors,” the investigators wrote.

The risk of developing CRC is related to several factors, including obesity, vitamin D deficiency, diabetes, smoking, and other dietary factors, the team further explained.

Among those aged 65 years or older, CRC death rates decreased by 3% per year from 2008 through 2017. For those aged 50-64 years, death rates dropped by 0.6% per year. In contrast, death rates rose by 1.3% per year for those younger than 50 years.

“The uptick in young adults, which is most rapid among non-Hispanic whites (2% per year), began around 2004 and was preceded by declines of 1% to 2% per year since at least 1975,” the investigators wrote.

The reduction in incidence and mortality among older adults is partially attributable to higher uptake of CRC screening. According to recent data, CRC screening rates were lower for those aged 50-64 years compared with individuals aged 65 years and older.

Based on current recommendations from the American Cancer Society, CRC screening should begin at age 45, with some higher-risk patients starting at age 40.

“Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults,” the investigators concluded.

The authors disclosed financial affiliations with the American Cancer Society, which funded the study, as well as Array Biopharma, Bayer, RGenix, Tesaro, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601.

Current trends in the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States suggest CRC will become a disease that largely affects young and middle-aged adults, according to a report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

As the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and with modifiable risk factors accounting for over 50% of cases and deaths, CRC is largely a preventable disease, explained study author Rebecca L. Siegel, of the American Cancer Society, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, CRC incidence dropped by 3.3% per year from 2011 through 2016 among individuals aged 65 years or older, but the opposite was observed for those aged 50-64 years, with rates increasing by 1% per year. The increase was even greater for those younger than 50 years, with an increase of 2.2% per year.

The CRC incidence from 2012 through 2016 was highest among Alaska Natives (89 cases per 100,000 persons) and lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (30 cases per 100,000 persons).

“CRC has been the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Alaska Natives since the early 1970s for reasons that are unknown but may include a higher prevalence of risk factors,” the investigators wrote.

The risk of developing CRC is related to several factors, including obesity, vitamin D deficiency, diabetes, smoking, and other dietary factors, the team further explained.

Among those aged 65 years or older, CRC death rates decreased by 3% per year from 2008 through 2017. For those aged 50-64 years, death rates dropped by 0.6% per year. In contrast, death rates rose by 1.3% per year for those younger than 50 years.

“The uptick in young adults, which is most rapid among non-Hispanic whites (2% per year), began around 2004 and was preceded by declines of 1% to 2% per year since at least 1975,” the investigators wrote.

The reduction in incidence and mortality among older adults is partially attributable to higher uptake of CRC screening. According to recent data, CRC screening rates were lower for those aged 50-64 years compared with individuals aged 65 years and older.

Based on current recommendations from the American Cancer Society, CRC screening should begin at age 45, with some higher-risk patients starting at age 40.

“Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults,” the investigators concluded.

The authors disclosed financial affiliations with the American Cancer Society, which funded the study, as well as Array Biopharma, Bayer, RGenix, Tesaro, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Siegel RL et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601.

Oral hygiene may be a key factor in diabetes risk, new data from a Korean national health database suggest.

“Frequent tooth brushing may be an attenuating factor for the risk of new-onset diabetes, and the presence of periodontal disease and increased number of missing teeth may be augmenting factors,” wrote Yoonkyung Chang, MD, of the Department of Neurology, Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

“Improving oral hygiene may be associated with a decreased risk of occurrence of new-onset diabetes,” they continued in an article published online in Diabetologia.

Periodontal disease involves inflammatory reactions that affect the surrounding tissues of the teeth. Inflammation, in turn, is an important cause of diabetes because it increases insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction, Dr. Chang and colleagues explained.

They analyzed data gathered during 2003-2006 from 188,013 individuals from the Korean National Health Insurance System – Health Screening Cohort who had complete data and did not have diabetes at baseline. Oral hygiene behaviors, including frequency of tooth brushing, and dental visits or cleanings, were collected by self-report.

Over a median follow-up of 10 years, there were 31,545 new cases of diabetes, with an estimated overall 10-year event rate of 16.1%. The rate was 17.2% for those with periodontal disease at baseline, compared with 15.8% for those without, which was a significant difference even after adjustments for multiple confounders (hazard ratio, 1.09; P less than .001).

Compared with patients who had no missing teeth, the event rate for new-onset diabetes rose from 15.4% for patients with 1 missing tooth (HR, 1.08; P less than .001) to 21.4% for those with 15 or more missing teeth (HR, 1.21; P less than .001).

Professional dental cleaning did not have a significant effect after multivariate analysis. However, the number of daily tooth brushings by the individual did. Compared with brushing 0-1 times/day, those who brushed 3 or more times/day had a significantly lower risk for new-onset diabetes (HR, 0.92; P less than .001).

In subgroup analyses, periodontal disease was more strongly associated with new-onset diabetes in adults aged 51 years and younger (HR, 1.14), compared with those who were 52 years or older (HR, 1.06).

The study was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral hygiene may be a key factor in diabetes risk, new data from a Korean national health database suggest.

“Frequent tooth brushing may be an attenuating factor for the risk of new-onset diabetes, and the presence of periodontal disease and increased number of missing teeth may be augmenting factors,” wrote Yoonkyung Chang, MD, of the Department of Neurology, Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

“Improving oral hygiene may be associated with a decreased risk of occurrence of new-onset diabetes,” they continued in an article published online in Diabetologia.

Periodontal disease involves inflammatory reactions that affect the surrounding tissues of the teeth. Inflammation, in turn, is an important cause of diabetes because it increases insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction, Dr. Chang and colleagues explained.

They analyzed data gathered during 2003-2006 from 188,013 individuals from the Korean National Health Insurance System – Health Screening Cohort who had complete data and did not have diabetes at baseline. Oral hygiene behaviors, including frequency of tooth brushing, and dental visits or cleanings, were collected by self-report.

Over a median follow-up of 10 years, there were 31,545 new cases of diabetes, with an estimated overall 10-year event rate of 16.1%. The rate was 17.2% for those with periodontal disease at baseline, compared with 15.8% for those without, which was a significant difference even after adjustments for multiple confounders (hazard ratio, 1.09; P less than .001).

Compared with patients who had no missing teeth, the event rate for new-onset diabetes rose from 15.4% for patients with 1 missing tooth (HR, 1.08; P less than .001) to 21.4% for those with 15 or more missing teeth (HR, 1.21; P less than .001).

Professional dental cleaning did not have a significant effect after multivariate analysis. However, the number of daily tooth brushings by the individual did. Compared with brushing 0-1 times/day, those who brushed 3 or more times/day had a significantly lower risk for new-onset diabetes (HR, 0.92; P less than .001).

In subgroup analyses, periodontal disease was more strongly associated with new-onset diabetes in adults aged 51 years and younger (HR, 1.14), compared with those who were 52 years or older (HR, 1.06).

The study was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral hygiene may be a key factor in diabetes risk, new data from a Korean national health database suggest.

“Frequent tooth brushing may be an attenuating factor for the risk of new-onset diabetes, and the presence of periodontal disease and increased number of missing teeth may be augmenting factors,” wrote Yoonkyung Chang, MD, of the Department of Neurology, Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

“Improving oral hygiene may be associated with a decreased risk of occurrence of new-onset diabetes,” they continued in an article published online in Diabetologia.

Periodontal disease involves inflammatory reactions that affect the surrounding tissues of the teeth. Inflammation, in turn, is an important cause of diabetes because it increases insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction, Dr. Chang and colleagues explained.

They analyzed data gathered during 2003-2006 from 188,013 individuals from the Korean National Health Insurance System – Health Screening Cohort who had complete data and did not have diabetes at baseline. Oral hygiene behaviors, including frequency of tooth brushing, and dental visits or cleanings, were collected by self-report.

Over a median follow-up of 10 years, there were 31,545 new cases of diabetes, with an estimated overall 10-year event rate of 16.1%. The rate was 17.2% for those with periodontal disease at baseline, compared with 15.8% for those without, which was a significant difference even after adjustments for multiple confounders (hazard ratio, 1.09; P less than .001).

Compared with patients who had no missing teeth, the event rate for new-onset diabetes rose from 15.4% for patients with 1 missing tooth (HR, 1.08; P less than .001) to 21.4% for those with 15 or more missing teeth (HR, 1.21; P less than .001).

Professional dental cleaning did not have a significant effect after multivariate analysis. However, the number of daily tooth brushings by the individual did. Compared with brushing 0-1 times/day, those who brushed 3 or more times/day had a significantly lower risk for new-onset diabetes (HR, 0.92; P less than .001).

In subgroup analyses, periodontal disease was more strongly associated with new-onset diabetes in adults aged 51 years and younger (HR, 1.14), compared with those who were 52 years or older (HR, 1.06).

The study was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.

For patients undergoing major oncologic surgery, the best definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk varies by cancer type, results of a retrospective study suggest.

The current, one-size-fits-all approach to nutritional status leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment of malnutrition, as well as inaccurate estimations of postoperative risk, reported lead study author Nicholas P. McKenna, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues.

“Assessing nutritional status is important because it impacts preoperative planning, particularly with respect to the use of prehabilitation,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. They noted that while prehabilitation has been shown to reduce postoperative risk among those who need it, identification of these patients is an area that needs improvement.

With this in mind, Dr. McKenna and colleagues analyzed 205,840 major oncologic operations, with data drawn from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database.

The researchers evaluated patients’ nutritional status using three techniques: the NSQIP method, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) definitions, and the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification system.

Combining these three assessments led to seven hierarchical nutritional status categories:

• Severe malnutrition – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m² and greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 1 – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• ESPEN 2 – BMI less than 18.5 kg/m²
• NSQIP – BMI greater than 20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older) plus greater than 10% weight loss
• Mild malnutrition – BMI 18.5-20 kg/m² (if younger than 70 years) or less than 22 kg/m² (if 70 years or older)
• Obese – BMI at least 30 kg/m²
• No malnutrition.

The study’s primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day morbidity. The latter included a variety of complications, such as deep incisional surgical site infection, septic shock, and acute renal failure. Demographic and clinical factors were included in multivariate analyses.
 

Results

Most of the operations involved patients with colorectal cancer (74%), followed by pancreatic (10%), lung (9%), gastric (3%), esophageal (3%), and liver (2%) cancer.

Across all patients, 16% fell into one of five malnutrition categories: mild malnutrition (6%), NSQIP (6%), ESPEN 2 (2%), ESPEN 1 (1%), or severe malnutrition (0.6%). The remainder of patients were either obese (31%) or had normal nutritional status (54%).

Malnutrition was most common among patients with pancreatic cancer (28%) and least common among those with colorectal cancer (14%).

Aligning with previous research, this study showed that nutritional status was associated with postoperative risk. Mortality risk was highest among patients with severe malnutrition, and morbidity was most common in the severe and ESPEN 1 groups (P less than .0001 for both).

While the spectrum of classifications appeared accurate across the population, multivariable models for mortality and morbidity revealed an interaction between cancer type and malnutrition definition (P less than .0001 for both), which suggested the most accurate definition of malnutrition differed from one type of cancer to another.

Specifically, a classification of severe malnutrition was most predictive of mortality among patients with esophageal or colorectal cancer. ESPEN 1 was most predictive of mortality for patients with gastric or lung cancer, and NSQIP was most predictive for those with liver cancer.

For predicting morbidity, severe malnutrition was most accurate among patients with colorectal cancer, whereas ESPEN 1 was better suited for gastric and lung cancer.
 

Interpreting and applying the results

“The biggest takeaway is that the optimal definition of malnutrition varies by cancer type,” Dr. McKenna said in an interview.

He went on to explain that weight loss is a particularly important indicator of malnutrition for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. “These are the cancers that more commonly undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” he noted.

The other major finding, Dr. McKenna said, offers some perspective on short-term versus long-term risk.

“Most people consider obesity a negative prognostic factor,” he said. “But in terms of operative risk, it’s kind of a neutral effect. It doesn’t really affect the short-term outcomes of an operation.”

Still, Dr. McKenna warned that a visual assessment of patient body condition is not enough to predict postoperative risk. Instead, he recommended accurate height and weight measurements during annual and preoperative exams. He also noted that more patients are at risk than clinicians may suspect.

“Even definitions that didn’t previously exist, such as mild malnutrition, had a somewhat negative effect within colorectal cancer and esophageal cancer,” Dr. McKenna said. “So these are patients who previously probably would be considered pretty healthy, but there is probably some room to improve their nutritional status.”

While the study revealed that different types of cancer should have unique tools for measuring nutritional status, development of these systems will require more research concerning prehabilitation outcomes, according to Dr. McKenna. In the meantime, he highlighted a point of action in the clinic.

“We think, overall, especially with the rise of neoadjuvant chemotherapy upfront, before surgery, that identifying patients at risk before they start neoadjuvant chemotherapy is going to be important,” he said. “They are the ones who really need to be targeted.”

There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: McKenna NP et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.12.034.