Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

On the first day of a historic 3-day meeting about drugs that were granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer indications, the first approval to come under discussion is staying in place, at least for now.

Members of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 7-2 in favor of keeping in place the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for use in a certain form of breast cancer. At the same time, the committee urged the manufacturer, Genentech, to do the research needed to prove the medicine works for these patients.

The specific indication is for atezolizumab as part of a combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) whose tumors are PD-L1 positive.

The FDA granted accelerated approval in 2019 for this use of atezolizumab, expecting Genentech to produce more extensive evidence of this benefit. But so far, Genentech has not produced the data proving to the FDA that atezolizumab provides the expected benefit.

The drug was already available for use in bladder cancer, having been granted a full approval for this indication in 2016.
 

Other accelerated approvals withdrawn

This week’s 3-day ODAC meeting is part of the FDA’s broader reconsideration of what it has described as “dangling accelerated approvals.”

Earlier discussions between the FDA and drugmakers have already triggered four voluntary withdrawals of cancer indications with these accelerated approvals, noted Julia A. Beaver, MD, and Richard Pazdur, MD, two of the FDA’s top regulators of oncology medicine, in an April 21 perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The small percentage of drugs whose clinical benefit is ultimately not confirmed should be viewed not as a failure of accelerated approval but rather as an expected trade-off in expediting drug development that benefits patients with severe or life-threatening diseases,” Dr. Beaver and Dr. Pazdur wrote.

But making these calls can be tough. On the first day of the meeting, even ODAC panelists who backed Genentech’s bid to maintain an mTNBC indication for atezolizumab expressed discomfort with this choice.

The FDA granted the accelerated approval for use of this drug in March 2019 based on improved progression-free survival from the IMpassion130 trial. But the drug fell short in subsequent efforts to confirm the results seen in that study. The confirmatory IMpassion131 trial failed to meet the primary endpoint, the FDA staff noted in briefing materials for the ODAC meeting.

ODAC panelist Stan Lipkowitz, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, said he expected this vote had been a tough one for all members serving on ODAC that day.

“In some ways, the purist in me said I should have voted no. But when I looked at the data, there are a couple of things that struck me,” said Dr. Lipkowitz, who is the chief of the Women’s Malignancies Branch at NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “First of all, the landscape hasn’t changed. There’s really no therapy in the first line for triple-negative metastatic that is shown to improve survival.”

Dr. Lipkowitz emphasized that Genentech needs to continue to try to prove atezolizumab works in this setting.

“There needs to be confirmatory study,” Dr. Lipkowitz concluded.

ODAC panelist Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said he also understood the difficult outlook for women fighting this cancer, but he voted against maintaining the approval.

“It’s not that I don’t feel the tragedy of these women,” said Dr. Ellis, citing his own decades of clinical experience.

“I just think that the data are the data,” Dr. Ellis said, adding that, in his view, “the only correct interpretation” of the evidence supported a vote against allowing the indication to stay.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory committees but is not bound by them.

In a statement issued after the vote, Genentech said it intends to work with the FDA to determine the next steps for this indication of atezolizumab because “the clinically meaningful benefit demonstrated in the IMpassion130 study remains.”

The ODAC meeting continues for 2 more days, and will consider five more cancer indications that have been granted an accelerated approval.

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

On the first day of a historic 3-day meeting about drugs that were granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer indications, the first approval to come under discussion is staying in place, at least for now.

Members of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 7-2 in favor of keeping in place the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for use in a certain form of breast cancer. At the same time, the committee urged the manufacturer, Genentech, to do the research needed to prove the medicine works for these patients.

The specific indication is for atezolizumab as part of a combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) whose tumors are PD-L1 positive.

The FDA granted accelerated approval in 2019 for this use of atezolizumab, expecting Genentech to produce more extensive evidence of this benefit. But so far, Genentech has not produced the data proving to the FDA that atezolizumab provides the expected benefit.

The drug was already available for use in bladder cancer, having been granted a full approval for this indication in 2016.
 

Other accelerated approvals withdrawn

This week’s 3-day ODAC meeting is part of the FDA’s broader reconsideration of what it has described as “dangling accelerated approvals.”

Earlier discussions between the FDA and drugmakers have already triggered four voluntary withdrawals of cancer indications with these accelerated approvals, noted Julia A. Beaver, MD, and Richard Pazdur, MD, two of the FDA’s top regulators of oncology medicine, in an April 21 perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The small percentage of drugs whose clinical benefit is ultimately not confirmed should be viewed not as a failure of accelerated approval but rather as an expected trade-off in expediting drug development that benefits patients with severe or life-threatening diseases,” Dr. Beaver and Dr. Pazdur wrote.

But making these calls can be tough. On the first day of the meeting, even ODAC panelists who backed Genentech’s bid to maintain an mTNBC indication for atezolizumab expressed discomfort with this choice.

The FDA granted the accelerated approval for use of this drug in March 2019 based on improved progression-free survival from the IMpassion130 trial. But the drug fell short in subsequent efforts to confirm the results seen in that study. The confirmatory IMpassion131 trial failed to meet the primary endpoint, the FDA staff noted in briefing materials for the ODAC meeting.

ODAC panelist Stan Lipkowitz, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, said he expected this vote had been a tough one for all members serving on ODAC that day.

“In some ways, the purist in me said I should have voted no. But when I looked at the data, there are a couple of things that struck me,” said Dr. Lipkowitz, who is the chief of the Women’s Malignancies Branch at NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “First of all, the landscape hasn’t changed. There’s really no therapy in the first line for triple-negative metastatic that is shown to improve survival.”

Dr. Lipkowitz emphasized that Genentech needs to continue to try to prove atezolizumab works in this setting.

“There needs to be confirmatory study,” Dr. Lipkowitz concluded.

ODAC panelist Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said he also understood the difficult outlook for women fighting this cancer, but he voted against maintaining the approval.

“It’s not that I don’t feel the tragedy of these women,” said Dr. Ellis, citing his own decades of clinical experience.

“I just think that the data are the data,” Dr. Ellis said, adding that, in his view, “the only correct interpretation” of the evidence supported a vote against allowing the indication to stay.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory committees but is not bound by them.

In a statement issued after the vote, Genentech said it intends to work with the FDA to determine the next steps for this indication of atezolizumab because “the clinically meaningful benefit demonstrated in the IMpassion130 study remains.”

The ODAC meeting continues for 2 more days, and will consider five more cancer indications that have been granted an accelerated approval.

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

On the first day of a historic 3-day meeting about drugs that were granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for cancer indications, the first approval to come under discussion is staying in place, at least for now.

Members of the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 7-2 in favor of keeping in place the indication for atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for use in a certain form of breast cancer. At the same time, the committee urged the manufacturer, Genentech, to do the research needed to prove the medicine works for these patients.

The specific indication is for atezolizumab as part of a combination with nab-paclitaxel for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) whose tumors are PD-L1 positive.

The FDA granted accelerated approval in 2019 for this use of atezolizumab, expecting Genentech to produce more extensive evidence of this benefit. But so far, Genentech has not produced the data proving to the FDA that atezolizumab provides the expected benefit.

The drug was already available for use in bladder cancer, having been granted a full approval for this indication in 2016.
 

Other accelerated approvals withdrawn

This week’s 3-day ODAC meeting is part of the FDA’s broader reconsideration of what it has described as “dangling accelerated approvals.”

Earlier discussions between the FDA and drugmakers have already triggered four voluntary withdrawals of cancer indications with these accelerated approvals, noted Julia A. Beaver, MD, and Richard Pazdur, MD, two of the FDA’s top regulators of oncology medicine, in an April 21 perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The small percentage of drugs whose clinical benefit is ultimately not confirmed should be viewed not as a failure of accelerated approval but rather as an expected trade-off in expediting drug development that benefits patients with severe or life-threatening diseases,” Dr. Beaver and Dr. Pazdur wrote.

But making these calls can be tough. On the first day of the meeting, even ODAC panelists who backed Genentech’s bid to maintain an mTNBC indication for atezolizumab expressed discomfort with this choice.

The FDA granted the accelerated approval for use of this drug in March 2019 based on improved progression-free survival from the IMpassion130 trial. But the drug fell short in subsequent efforts to confirm the results seen in that study. The confirmatory IMpassion131 trial failed to meet the primary endpoint, the FDA staff noted in briefing materials for the ODAC meeting.

ODAC panelist Stan Lipkowitz, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, said he expected this vote had been a tough one for all members serving on ODAC that day.

“In some ways, the purist in me said I should have voted no. But when I looked at the data, there are a couple of things that struck me,” said Dr. Lipkowitz, who is the chief of the Women’s Malignancies Branch at NCI’s Center for Cancer Research. “First of all, the landscape hasn’t changed. There’s really no therapy in the first line for triple-negative metastatic that is shown to improve survival.”

Dr. Lipkowitz emphasized that Genentech needs to continue to try to prove atezolizumab works in this setting.

“There needs to be confirmatory study,” Dr. Lipkowitz concluded.

ODAC panelist Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said he also understood the difficult outlook for women fighting this cancer, but he voted against maintaining the approval.

“It’s not that I don’t feel the tragedy of these women,” said Dr. Ellis, citing his own decades of clinical experience.

“I just think that the data are the data,” Dr. Ellis said, adding that, in his view, “the only correct interpretation” of the evidence supported a vote against allowing the indication to stay.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory committees but is not bound by them.

In a statement issued after the vote, Genentech said it intends to work with the FDA to determine the next steps for this indication of atezolizumab because “the clinically meaningful benefit demonstrated in the IMpassion130 study remains.”

The ODAC meeting continues for 2 more days, and will consider five more cancer indications that have been granted an accelerated approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in pregnant patients, according to preliminary findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said pregnant people have an increased risk of being severely ill from COVID-19; however, this group was excluded from major clinical trials that led up to the current vaccine approvals.

But based on the new findings, Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, announced during a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study, which analyzed data between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, from three federal databases, adds to a pool of limited data about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant persons. Researchers did not include people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it received emergency use authorization on Feb. 27, just 1 day before they study’s cutoff.

“Our hope is that these initial data will be reassuring to pregnant people and their health care providers as well as the public, and contribute to increasing vaccination rates,” study author Christine Olson, MD, said in an interview. “While the data are preliminary and will continue to be analyzed as more reports become available, our findings are reassuring.”

For the study, Dr. Olson and colleagues analyzed v-safe survey data, data from those enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports.

Researchers found that 86% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 12.6 % resulted in spontaneous abortions, and 0.1% resulted in stillbirth. They also found that, among the live births, 9.4% were preterm, 3.2% of babies were small for their gestational age, and 2.2% had congenital anomalies.

Researchers also found that injection-site pain, fatigue, and headaches were reported more frequently in pregnant patients than among those who were not pregnant. Among VAERS reports, they found that 70% of adverse events were nonpregnancy specific. Nearly 30% involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events. The most frequently reported pregnancy-related events were spontaneous abortions, followed by stillbirths, premature rupture of membranes and vaginal bleeding.

“I think the results are actually quite reassuring as the proportion of the pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss and health effects to the newborns, are really quite consistent with what we’d expect in the background rate of the population,” Dr. Walensky said in a podcast accompanying the study. “So this study adds to growing evidence confirming that pregnant people develop a robust immune response to COVID-19 vaccination without so far seeing any adverse events to the mom or the fetus.”

Researchers said limitations of the study include the accuracy of self-reported data, and there being limited information on other potential risk factors for adverse pregnancies and neonatal outcomes. They acknowledged that continuous monitoring is needed to look at maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period.

David Jaspan, DO, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that, despite the limitations, the study provides much-needed insight on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in pregnant patients.

“In December we had no data for any pregnant patient,” Dr. Jaspan said. “And now just 4 short months later, this paper [has data from] at least had 35,000 people. We can’t answer every question, but we have more answers today than we had just 4 months ago.”

Dr. Olson hopes the present data is enough to help inform decision-making of pregnant patients and their health care providers when it comes to deciding to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The study author and experts interviewed disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in pregnant patients, according to preliminary findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said pregnant people have an increased risk of being severely ill from COVID-19; however, this group was excluded from major clinical trials that led up to the current vaccine approvals.

But based on the new findings, Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, announced during a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study, which analyzed data between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, from three federal databases, adds to a pool of limited data about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant persons. Researchers did not include people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it received emergency use authorization on Feb. 27, just 1 day before they study’s cutoff.

“Our hope is that these initial data will be reassuring to pregnant people and their health care providers as well as the public, and contribute to increasing vaccination rates,” study author Christine Olson, MD, said in an interview. “While the data are preliminary and will continue to be analyzed as more reports become available, our findings are reassuring.”

For the study, Dr. Olson and colleagues analyzed v-safe survey data, data from those enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports.

Researchers found that 86% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 12.6 % resulted in spontaneous abortions, and 0.1% resulted in stillbirth. They also found that, among the live births, 9.4% were preterm, 3.2% of babies were small for their gestational age, and 2.2% had congenital anomalies.

Researchers also found that injection-site pain, fatigue, and headaches were reported more frequently in pregnant patients than among those who were not pregnant. Among VAERS reports, they found that 70% of adverse events were nonpregnancy specific. Nearly 30% involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events. The most frequently reported pregnancy-related events were spontaneous abortions, followed by stillbirths, premature rupture of membranes and vaginal bleeding.

“I think the results are actually quite reassuring as the proportion of the pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss and health effects to the newborns, are really quite consistent with what we’d expect in the background rate of the population,” Dr. Walensky said in a podcast accompanying the study. “So this study adds to growing evidence confirming that pregnant people develop a robust immune response to COVID-19 vaccination without so far seeing any adverse events to the mom or the fetus.”

Researchers said limitations of the study include the accuracy of self-reported data, and there being limited information on other potential risk factors for adverse pregnancies and neonatal outcomes. They acknowledged that continuous monitoring is needed to look at maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period.

David Jaspan, DO, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that, despite the limitations, the study provides much-needed insight on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in pregnant patients.

“In December we had no data for any pregnant patient,” Dr. Jaspan said. “And now just 4 short months later, this paper [has data from] at least had 35,000 people. We can’t answer every question, but we have more answers today than we had just 4 months ago.”

Dr. Olson hopes the present data is enough to help inform decision-making of pregnant patients and their health care providers when it comes to deciding to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The study author and experts interviewed disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in pregnant patients, according to preliminary findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said pregnant people have an increased risk of being severely ill from COVID-19; however, this group was excluded from major clinical trials that led up to the current vaccine approvals.

But based on the new findings, Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, announced during a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study, which analyzed data between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, from three federal databases, adds to a pool of limited data about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant persons. Researchers did not include people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it received emergency use authorization on Feb. 27, just 1 day before they study’s cutoff.

“Our hope is that these initial data will be reassuring to pregnant people and their health care providers as well as the public, and contribute to increasing vaccination rates,” study author Christine Olson, MD, said in an interview. “While the data are preliminary and will continue to be analyzed as more reports become available, our findings are reassuring.”

For the study, Dr. Olson and colleagues analyzed v-safe survey data, data from those enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports.

Researchers found that 86% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 12.6 % resulted in spontaneous abortions, and 0.1% resulted in stillbirth. They also found that, among the live births, 9.4% were preterm, 3.2% of babies were small for their gestational age, and 2.2% had congenital anomalies.

Researchers also found that injection-site pain, fatigue, and headaches were reported more frequently in pregnant patients than among those who were not pregnant. Among VAERS reports, they found that 70% of adverse events were nonpregnancy specific. Nearly 30% involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events. The most frequently reported pregnancy-related events were spontaneous abortions, followed by stillbirths, premature rupture of membranes and vaginal bleeding.

“I think the results are actually quite reassuring as the proportion of the pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss and health effects to the newborns, are really quite consistent with what we’d expect in the background rate of the population,” Dr. Walensky said in a podcast accompanying the study. “So this study adds to growing evidence confirming that pregnant people develop a robust immune response to COVID-19 vaccination without so far seeing any adverse events to the mom or the fetus.”

Researchers said limitations of the study include the accuracy of self-reported data, and there being limited information on other potential risk factors for adverse pregnancies and neonatal outcomes. They acknowledged that continuous monitoring is needed to look at maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period.

David Jaspan, DO, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that, despite the limitations, the study provides much-needed insight on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in pregnant patients.

“In December we had no data for any pregnant patient,” Dr. Jaspan said. “And now just 4 short months later, this paper [has data from] at least had 35,000 people. We can’t answer every question, but we have more answers today than we had just 4 months ago.”

Dr. Olson hopes the present data is enough to help inform decision-making of pregnant patients and their health care providers when it comes to deciding to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The study author and experts interviewed disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The Food and Drug Administration granted an accelerated approval April 24, 2021, for a new drug for use in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) who have tried at least two prior systemic therapies.

The new product, loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl (Zynlonta, ADC Therapeutics), is the first and only CD19-targeted antibody-drug conjugate approved for this disease.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, but the indication also includes DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low grade lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

“There is a significant unmet need for treatment options for patients with [relapsed or refractory] DLBCL, including those who have been heavily pretreated and have difficult-to-treat disease,” Paolo F. Caimi, MD, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in a company press release.

The company also cited data from previous clinical trials showing that more than 40% of first-line DLBCL treatments fail, and that these patients have a poor prognosis, worsening with each line of therapy that is tried.
 

Accelerated approval based on ORR

The accelerated approval was based on overall response rate data from the single-arm LOTIS-2 trial. All patients received the new drug, administered as a 30-minute infusion once every 3 weeks for 1 year.

The trial was conducted in 145 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who had already tried at least two lines of systemic therapy. Dr. Caimi noted that this included patients who had been heavily pretreated, as the population included patients who previously received stem cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

The ORR was 48.3% (70/145 patients), which included a complete response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients) and a partial response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients).

Patients had a median time to response of 1.3 months and the median duration of response for the 70 responders was 10.3 months.

“Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial,” the company noted.

A phase 3 confirmatory is underway: the LOTIS 5 trial (NCT04384484) compares the combination of loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab versus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The company also noted that in a pooled safety population the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were thrombocytopenia, an increase in levels of the liver enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase, neutropenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, transaminase elevation, fatigue, hypoalbuminemia, rash, edema, nausea, and musculoskeletal pain.

In the LOTIS-2 trial, the most common (≥10%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), GGT increase (17.2%) and anemia (10.3%).

Permanent treatment discontinuation as the result of an adverse reaction occurred in 19% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, edema, and effusion.

Dose reductions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients, and most were the result of a GGT increase. Dosage interruptions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 49% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and edema.
 

Warnings on effusions, infections, and skin reactions

The product carries a warning that serious effusion and edema has been reported. Grade 3 edema occurred in 3% (primarily peripheral edema or ascites), grade 3 pleural effusion occurred in 3%, and grade 3 or 4 pericardial effusion occurred in 1%.

Prescribers are recommended to monitor patients for new or worsening edema or effusions, and to consider diagnostic imaging in patients who develop symptoms of pleural effusion or pericardial effusion, such as new or worsened dyspnea, chest pain, and/or ascites such as swelling in the abdomen and bloating.

The product also carries a warning about fatal and serious infections, including opportunistic infections, and serious cutaneous reactions, including photosensitivity reaction, rash (including exfoliative and maculopapular), and erythema.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted an accelerated approval April 24, 2021, for a new drug for use in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) who have tried at least two prior systemic therapies.

The new product, loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl (Zynlonta, ADC Therapeutics), is the first and only CD19-targeted antibody-drug conjugate approved for this disease.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, but the indication also includes DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low grade lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

“There is a significant unmet need for treatment options for patients with [relapsed or refractory] DLBCL, including those who have been heavily pretreated and have difficult-to-treat disease,” Paolo F. Caimi, MD, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in a company press release.

The company also cited data from previous clinical trials showing that more than 40% of first-line DLBCL treatments fail, and that these patients have a poor prognosis, worsening with each line of therapy that is tried.
 

Accelerated approval based on ORR

The accelerated approval was based on overall response rate data from the single-arm LOTIS-2 trial. All patients received the new drug, administered as a 30-minute infusion once every 3 weeks for 1 year.

The trial was conducted in 145 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who had already tried at least two lines of systemic therapy. Dr. Caimi noted that this included patients who had been heavily pretreated, as the population included patients who previously received stem cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

The ORR was 48.3% (70/145 patients), which included a complete response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients) and a partial response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients).

Patients had a median time to response of 1.3 months and the median duration of response for the 70 responders was 10.3 months.

“Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial,” the company noted.

A phase 3 confirmatory is underway: the LOTIS 5 trial (NCT04384484) compares the combination of loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab versus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The company also noted that in a pooled safety population the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were thrombocytopenia, an increase in levels of the liver enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase, neutropenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, transaminase elevation, fatigue, hypoalbuminemia, rash, edema, nausea, and musculoskeletal pain.

In the LOTIS-2 trial, the most common (≥10%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), GGT increase (17.2%) and anemia (10.3%).

Permanent treatment discontinuation as the result of an adverse reaction occurred in 19% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, edema, and effusion.

Dose reductions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients, and most were the result of a GGT increase. Dosage interruptions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 49% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and edema.
 

Warnings on effusions, infections, and skin reactions

The product carries a warning that serious effusion and edema has been reported. Grade 3 edema occurred in 3% (primarily peripheral edema or ascites), grade 3 pleural effusion occurred in 3%, and grade 3 or 4 pericardial effusion occurred in 1%.

Prescribers are recommended to monitor patients for new or worsening edema or effusions, and to consider diagnostic imaging in patients who develop symptoms of pleural effusion or pericardial effusion, such as new or worsened dyspnea, chest pain, and/or ascites such as swelling in the abdomen and bloating.

The product also carries a warning about fatal and serious infections, including opportunistic infections, and serious cutaneous reactions, including photosensitivity reaction, rash (including exfoliative and maculopapular), and erythema.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted an accelerated approval April 24, 2021, for a new drug for use in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) who have tried at least two prior systemic therapies.

The new product, loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl (Zynlonta, ADC Therapeutics), is the first and only CD19-targeted antibody-drug conjugate approved for this disease.

DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the United States, but the indication also includes DLBCL not otherwise specified, DLBCL arising from low grade lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

“There is a significant unmet need for treatment options for patients with [relapsed or refractory] DLBCL, including those who have been heavily pretreated and have difficult-to-treat disease,” Paolo F. Caimi, MD, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in a company press release.

The company also cited data from previous clinical trials showing that more than 40% of first-line DLBCL treatments fail, and that these patients have a poor prognosis, worsening with each line of therapy that is tried.
 

Accelerated approval based on ORR

The accelerated approval was based on overall response rate data from the single-arm LOTIS-2 trial. All patients received the new drug, administered as a 30-minute infusion once every 3 weeks for 1 year.

The trial was conducted in 145 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who had already tried at least two lines of systemic therapy. Dr. Caimi noted that this included patients who had been heavily pretreated, as the population included patients who previously received stem cell transplant or chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

The ORR was 48.3% (70/145 patients), which included a complete response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients) and a partial response rate of 24.1% (35/145 patients).

Patients had a median time to response of 1.3 months and the median duration of response for the 70 responders was 10.3 months.

“Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial,” the company noted.

A phase 3 confirmatory is underway: the LOTIS 5 trial (NCT04384484) compares the combination of loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab versus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

The company also noted that in a pooled safety population the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were thrombocytopenia, an increase in levels of the liver enzyme gamma-glutamyltransferase, neutropenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, transaminase elevation, fatigue, hypoalbuminemia, rash, edema, nausea, and musculoskeletal pain.

In the LOTIS-2 trial, the most common (≥10%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (26.2%), thrombocytopenia (17.9%), GGT increase (17.2%) and anemia (10.3%).

Permanent treatment discontinuation as the result of an adverse reaction occurred in 19% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, edema, and effusion.

Dose reductions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 8% of patients, and most were the result of a GGT increase. Dosage interruptions because of an adverse reaction occurred in 49% of patients, and these included a GGT increase, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and edema.
 

Warnings on effusions, infections, and skin reactions

The product carries a warning that serious effusion and edema has been reported. Grade 3 edema occurred in 3% (primarily peripheral edema or ascites), grade 3 pleural effusion occurred in 3%, and grade 3 or 4 pericardial effusion occurred in 1%.

Prescribers are recommended to monitor patients for new or worsening edema or effusions, and to consider diagnostic imaging in patients who develop symptoms of pleural effusion or pericardial effusion, such as new or worsened dyspnea, chest pain, and/or ascites such as swelling in the abdomen and bloating.

The product also carries a warning about fatal and serious infections, including opportunistic infections, and serious cutaneous reactions, including photosensitivity reaction, rash (including exfoliative and maculopapular), and erythema.

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

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with incidence rates of 39% and 52% in two independent, European case series presented recently at the International Society of Nephrology: 2021 World Congress. Many of the cases progressed to more severe, stage 3 AKI. Factors linked with incident AKI in the two reports included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or diuretics, and elevations in inflammatory markers.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

The new findings confirm several U.S. reports published during the past year. In those reports, roughly a third of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed AKI during their hospital stay, said Jay L. Koyner, MD, during another renal conference, the National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.

Experience has shown it’s bad news when hospitalized COVID-19 patients develop AKI, which can prove fatal or can lead to the development or worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which in some cases rapidly progresses to end-stage disease.
 

COVID-19 giving nephrologists an opportunity to improve AKI care

“COVID is giving us an opportunity to do a better job of taking care of patients who develop AKI, which is something that nephrologists have not often excelled at doing,” said Dr. Koyner, professor and director of the nephrology ICU at the University of Chicago.

“Many studies will look at how we can manage COVID-19 patients better after they develop AKI, because I suspect a large number of these patients will wind up with CKD,” Dr. Koyner said during his talk.

He cited several lessons from reports of AKI that occurs in patients hospitalized for COVID-19:

• Preexisting CKD, , and severe COVID-19 appear to be risk factors for developing COVID-related AKI.
• Patients who develop AKI during acutely severe COVID-19 may have slightly worse outcomes than patients without COVID-19 who develop AKI.
• Certain genetic susceptibilities may play a role in developing COVID-19–related AKI.
• Routine follow-up of AKI is generally inadequate and is not standardized, whether AKI develops while ill with COVID-19 or in other settings.

The most encouraging AKI takeaway from COVID-19’s first year is that its incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appears to have dropped from very high rates early on, possibly because of more routine use of steroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a reduction in the use of ventilators, Dr. Koyner suggested.
 

In-hospital diuretic treatment links with AKI

One of the World Congress of Nephrology reports involved 1,248 patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in London during March–May 2020. The average age of the patients was 69 years, 59% were men, and 17% had CKD at admission, as determined on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

During hospitalization, 487 patients (39%) developed AKI, including 175 (14%) with stage 3 AKI and 109 (9%) who required renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplant). The incidence of AKI peaked 5 weeks after COVID-19 admission, Paul Jewell and associates from King’s College Hospital, London, reported in a poster.

Multivariate analysis identified several demographic and clinical variables that were significantly linked with an increased risk of developing AKI: male sex (which boosted risk by 55%), Black race (79% higher risk), CKD at admission (triple the risk), being hypertensive on admission (73% higher risk), and being administered diuretics during hospitalization (69% higher risk).

The findings of a risk linked with diuretic use “supports the cautious use of diuretics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially in the presence of background renal impairment,” the authors said.

For patients with incident AKI, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly increased; mortality was 59% higher among patients who developed stage 1 AKI and was roughly triple among patients who developed stage 2 or 3 AKI.
 

Second report links ventilation, vasopressors with worse AKI

A separate report from clinicians at Charité Hospital, Berlin, retrospectively analyzed 223 patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 to three Charité sites during March–June 2020. During hospitalization, 117 patients (52%) developed AKI, including 70 (31%) with stage 3 disease; 67 (30%) required renal replacement therapy. Half the patients with stage 3 AKI required ICU admission.

Compared with patients with less severe AKI, patients who developed stage 3 AKI were more often male, older, and had a higher body mass index.

In a multivariate model, compared with patients who developed less severe AKI, those who developed stage 3 disease also were significantly more likely to have received mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs and were more likely to have increased levels of leukocytes or procalcitonin, two inflammatory markers, Jan-Hendrink B. Hardenburg, MD, a Charité nephrologist, and associates reported in a poster at the meeting.

Mechanical ventilation was linked with a sixfold higher rate of stage 3 AKI, and treatment with vasopressor drugs was linked with a threefold higher rate. Elevations in procalcitonin or leukocyte levels were linked with about 60% increases in rates of stage 3 AKI. For both of these risk factors, temporal relationships were tighter; increases in both values appeared just before onset of stage 3 disease.

Dr. Joyner has been a speaker on behalf of NXStage Medical; a consultant to Astute Medical, Baxter, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Sphingotec; and he has received research funding from Astute, Bioporto, NxStage, and Satellite Healthcare. Mr. Jewell and Dr. Hardenburg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with incidence rates of 39% and 52% in two independent, European case series presented recently at the International Society of Nephrology: 2021 World Congress. Many of the cases progressed to more severe, stage 3 AKI. Factors linked with incident AKI in the two reports included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or diuretics, and elevations in inflammatory markers.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

The new findings confirm several U.S. reports published during the past year. In those reports, roughly a third of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed AKI during their hospital stay, said Jay L. Koyner, MD, during another renal conference, the National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.

Experience has shown it’s bad news when hospitalized COVID-19 patients develop AKI, which can prove fatal or can lead to the development or worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which in some cases rapidly progresses to end-stage disease.
 

COVID-19 giving nephrologists an opportunity to improve AKI care

“COVID is giving us an opportunity to do a better job of taking care of patients who develop AKI, which is something that nephrologists have not often excelled at doing,” said Dr. Koyner, professor and director of the nephrology ICU at the University of Chicago.

“Many studies will look at how we can manage COVID-19 patients better after they develop AKI, because I suspect a large number of these patients will wind up with CKD,” Dr. Koyner said during his talk.

He cited several lessons from reports of AKI that occurs in patients hospitalized for COVID-19:

• Preexisting CKD, , and severe COVID-19 appear to be risk factors for developing COVID-related AKI.
• Patients who develop AKI during acutely severe COVID-19 may have slightly worse outcomes than patients without COVID-19 who develop AKI.
• Certain genetic susceptibilities may play a role in developing COVID-19–related AKI.
• Routine follow-up of AKI is generally inadequate and is not standardized, whether AKI develops while ill with COVID-19 or in other settings.

The most encouraging AKI takeaway from COVID-19’s first year is that its incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appears to have dropped from very high rates early on, possibly because of more routine use of steroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a reduction in the use of ventilators, Dr. Koyner suggested.
 

In-hospital diuretic treatment links with AKI

One of the World Congress of Nephrology reports involved 1,248 patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in London during March–May 2020. The average age of the patients was 69 years, 59% were men, and 17% had CKD at admission, as determined on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

During hospitalization, 487 patients (39%) developed AKI, including 175 (14%) with stage 3 AKI and 109 (9%) who required renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplant). The incidence of AKI peaked 5 weeks after COVID-19 admission, Paul Jewell and associates from King’s College Hospital, London, reported in a poster.

Multivariate analysis identified several demographic and clinical variables that were significantly linked with an increased risk of developing AKI: male sex (which boosted risk by 55%), Black race (79% higher risk), CKD at admission (triple the risk), being hypertensive on admission (73% higher risk), and being administered diuretics during hospitalization (69% higher risk).

The findings of a risk linked with diuretic use “supports the cautious use of diuretics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially in the presence of background renal impairment,” the authors said.

For patients with incident AKI, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly increased; mortality was 59% higher among patients who developed stage 1 AKI and was roughly triple among patients who developed stage 2 or 3 AKI.
 

Second report links ventilation, vasopressors with worse AKI

A separate report from clinicians at Charité Hospital, Berlin, retrospectively analyzed 223 patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 to three Charité sites during March–June 2020. During hospitalization, 117 patients (52%) developed AKI, including 70 (31%) with stage 3 disease; 67 (30%) required renal replacement therapy. Half the patients with stage 3 AKI required ICU admission.

Compared with patients with less severe AKI, patients who developed stage 3 AKI were more often male, older, and had a higher body mass index.

In a multivariate model, compared with patients who developed less severe AKI, those who developed stage 3 disease also were significantly more likely to have received mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs and were more likely to have increased levels of leukocytes or procalcitonin, two inflammatory markers, Jan-Hendrink B. Hardenburg, MD, a Charité nephrologist, and associates reported in a poster at the meeting.

Mechanical ventilation was linked with a sixfold higher rate of stage 3 AKI, and treatment with vasopressor drugs was linked with a threefold higher rate. Elevations in procalcitonin or leukocyte levels were linked with about 60% increases in rates of stage 3 AKI. For both of these risk factors, temporal relationships were tighter; increases in both values appeared just before onset of stage 3 disease.

Dr. Joyner has been a speaker on behalf of NXStage Medical; a consultant to Astute Medical, Baxter, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Sphingotec; and he has received research funding from Astute, Bioporto, NxStage, and Satellite Healthcare. Mr. Jewell and Dr. Hardenburg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with incidence rates of 39% and 52% in two independent, European case series presented recently at the International Society of Nephrology: 2021 World Congress. Many of the cases progressed to more severe, stage 3 AKI. Factors linked with incident AKI in the two reports included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or diuretics, and elevations in inflammatory markers.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

The new findings confirm several U.S. reports published during the past year. In those reports, roughly a third of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed AKI during their hospital stay, said Jay L. Koyner, MD, during another renal conference, the National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.

Experience has shown it’s bad news when hospitalized COVID-19 patients develop AKI, which can prove fatal or can lead to the development or worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which in some cases rapidly progresses to end-stage disease.
 

COVID-19 giving nephrologists an opportunity to improve AKI care

“COVID is giving us an opportunity to do a better job of taking care of patients who develop AKI, which is something that nephrologists have not often excelled at doing,” said Dr. Koyner, professor and director of the nephrology ICU at the University of Chicago.

“Many studies will look at how we can manage COVID-19 patients better after they develop AKI, because I suspect a large number of these patients will wind up with CKD,” Dr. Koyner said during his talk.

He cited several lessons from reports of AKI that occurs in patients hospitalized for COVID-19:

• Preexisting CKD, , and severe COVID-19 appear to be risk factors for developing COVID-related AKI.
• Patients who develop AKI during acutely severe COVID-19 may have slightly worse outcomes than patients without COVID-19 who develop AKI.
• Certain genetic susceptibilities may play a role in developing COVID-19–related AKI.
• Routine follow-up of AKI is generally inadequate and is not standardized, whether AKI develops while ill with COVID-19 or in other settings.

The most encouraging AKI takeaway from COVID-19’s first year is that its incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appears to have dropped from very high rates early on, possibly because of more routine use of steroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a reduction in the use of ventilators, Dr. Koyner suggested.
 

In-hospital diuretic treatment links with AKI

One of the World Congress of Nephrology reports involved 1,248 patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in London during March–May 2020. The average age of the patients was 69 years, 59% were men, and 17% had CKD at admission, as determined on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

During hospitalization, 487 patients (39%) developed AKI, including 175 (14%) with stage 3 AKI and 109 (9%) who required renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplant). The incidence of AKI peaked 5 weeks after COVID-19 admission, Paul Jewell and associates from King’s College Hospital, London, reported in a poster.

Multivariate analysis identified several demographic and clinical variables that were significantly linked with an increased risk of developing AKI: male sex (which boosted risk by 55%), Black race (79% higher risk), CKD at admission (triple the risk), being hypertensive on admission (73% higher risk), and being administered diuretics during hospitalization (69% higher risk).

The findings of a risk linked with diuretic use “supports the cautious use of diuretics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially in the presence of background renal impairment,” the authors said.

For patients with incident AKI, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly increased; mortality was 59% higher among patients who developed stage 1 AKI and was roughly triple among patients who developed stage 2 or 3 AKI.
 

Second report links ventilation, vasopressors with worse AKI

A separate report from clinicians at Charité Hospital, Berlin, retrospectively analyzed 223 patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 to three Charité sites during March–June 2020. During hospitalization, 117 patients (52%) developed AKI, including 70 (31%) with stage 3 disease; 67 (30%) required renal replacement therapy. Half the patients with stage 3 AKI required ICU admission.

Compared with patients with less severe AKI, patients who developed stage 3 AKI were more often male, older, and had a higher body mass index.

In a multivariate model, compared with patients who developed less severe AKI, those who developed stage 3 disease also were significantly more likely to have received mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs and were more likely to have increased levels of leukocytes or procalcitonin, two inflammatory markers, Jan-Hendrink B. Hardenburg, MD, a Charité nephrologist, and associates reported in a poster at the meeting.

Mechanical ventilation was linked with a sixfold higher rate of stage 3 AKI, and treatment with vasopressor drugs was linked with a threefold higher rate. Elevations in procalcitonin or leukocyte levels were linked with about 60% increases in rates of stage 3 AKI. For both of these risk factors, temporal relationships were tighter; increases in both values appeared just before onset of stage 3 disease.

Dr. Joyner has been a speaker on behalf of NXStage Medical; a consultant to Astute Medical, Baxter, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Sphingotec; and he has received research funding from Astute, Bioporto, NxStage, and Satellite Healthcare. Mr. Jewell and Dr. Hardenburg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.

“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.

IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.

They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
 

Dramatic increase

In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.

The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).

This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).

IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).

Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).

Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.

“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
 

Nationwide data desirable

“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”

The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.

“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.

Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.

A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.

“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”

Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.

“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.

IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.

They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
 

Dramatic increase

In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.

The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).

This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).

IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).

Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).

Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.

“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
 

Nationwide data desirable

“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”

The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.

“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.

Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.

A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.

“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”

Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.

“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.

IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.

They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
 

Dramatic increase

In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.

The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).

This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).

IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).

Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).

Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.

“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
 

Nationwide data desirable

“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”

The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.

“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.

Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.

A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.

“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”

Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]