Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.

SL/Getty Images

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.

The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.

The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.

The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.

Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.

Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.

With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.

More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.

This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.

On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.

Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”

Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.

“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”

The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.

However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”

Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.

Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.

SL/Getty Images

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.

The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.

The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.

The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.

Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.

Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.

With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.

More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.

This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.

On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.

Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”

Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.

“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”

The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.

However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”

Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.

Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.

SL/Getty Images

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.

The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.

The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.

The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.

Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.

“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.

Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.

With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.

More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.

This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.

On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.

Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”

Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.

“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”

The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.

However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”

Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.

Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

Women who’ve had gestational diabetes are 40% more likely to develop coronary artery calcification later in life than are women haven’t, and attaining normal glycemic levels doesn’t diminish their midlife risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

“The new finding from this study is that women with gestational diabetes had twice the risk of coronary artery calcium, compared to women who never had gestational diabetes, even though both groups attained normal blood sugar levels many years after pregnancy,” lead author Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, MS, MPH, said in an interview about a community-based prospective cohort study of young adults followed for up to 25 years, which was published in Circulation (2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047320).

Previous studies have reported a higher risk of heart disease in women who had gestational diabetes (GD) and later developed type 2 diabetes, but they didn’t elucidate whether that risk carried over in GD patients whose glycemic levels were normal after pregnancy. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines specified that a history of GD increases women’s risk for coronary artery calcification (CAC).

This study analyzed data of 1,133 women ages 18-30 enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who had no diabetes in the baseline years of 1985-1986 and had given birth at least once in the ensuing 25 years. They had glucose tolerance testing at baseline and up to five times through the study period, along with evaluation for GD status and coronary artery calcification CAC measurements at least once at years 15, 20 and 25 (2001-2011).

CARDIA enrolled 5,155 young Black and White men and women ages 18-30 from four distinct geographic areas: Birmingham, Ala.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Oakland, Calif. About 52% of the study population was Black.

Of the women who’d given birth, 139 (12%) had GD. Their average age at follow-up was 47.6 years, and 25% of the GD patients (34) had CAC, compared with 15% (149/994) in the non-GD group.

Dr. Gunderson noted that the same relative risk for CAC applied to women who had GD and went on to develop prediabetes or were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up.
 

Risks persist even in normoglycemia

In the GD group, the adjusted hazard ratio for having CAC with normoglycemia was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.09). The researchers also calculated HRs for prediabetes and incident diabetes: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.06-2.24) in no-GD and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.09-4.17) for GD for prediabetes; and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.62) and 2.02 (95% CI, 0.98-4.19), respectively, for incident diabetes (P = .003).

“This means the risk of heart disease may be increased substantially in women with a history of gestational diabetes and may not diminish even if their blood-sugar levels remain normal for years later,” said Dr. Gunderson, an epidemiologist and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland.

“The clinical implications of our findings are that women with previous GD may benefit from enhanced traditional CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factor testing – i.e., for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperinsulinemia,” Dr. Gunderson said. “Our findings also suggest that it could be beneficial to incorporate history of GD into risk calculators to improve CVD risk stratification and prevention.”
 

Strong findings argue for more frequent CVD screening

These study results may be the strongest data to date on the long-term effects of GD, said Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s the strongest in the sense in that it’s sponsored, involved four different communities in different parts of the United States, enrolled individuals when they were young and followed them, and saw very few patients drop out for such a long-term study.” The study reported follow-up data on 72% of patients at 25 years, a rate Dr. Deedwania noted was “excellent.”

“Patients who have had GD should be screened aggressively – for not only diabetes, but other cardiovascular risk factors – early on to minimize the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is a very important point of this study,” he added. In the absence of a clinical guideline, Dr. Deedwania suggested women with GD might have screening for CV risk factors every 5-7 years depending on their risk profile, but emphasized that parameter isn’t settled.

Future research should focus on the link between GD and CVD risk, Dr. Gunderson said. “Research is needed to better characterize the severity of GD in relation to CVD outcomes, and to identify critical pregnancy-related periods to modify cardiometabolic risk.” The latter would include life-course studies across the full pregnancy continuum from preconception to lactation. “Interventions for primary prevention of CVD and the importance of modifiable lifestyle behaviors with the highest relevance to reduce both diabetes and CVD risks during the first year post partum merit increased research investigation,” she added.

Future studies might also explore the role of inflammation in the GD-CVD relationship, Dr. Deedwania said. “My hypothesis is, and it’s purely a hypothesis, that perhaps the presence of coronary artery calcification scores score in these individuals who were described as having normal glucose but who could be at risk could very well be related to the beginning of inflammation.”

Dr. Gunderson and Dr. Deedwania have no financial relationships to disclose. The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Women who’ve had gestational diabetes are 40% more likely to develop coronary artery calcification later in life than are women haven’t, and attaining normal glycemic levels doesn’t diminish their midlife risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

“The new finding from this study is that women with gestational diabetes had twice the risk of coronary artery calcium, compared to women who never had gestational diabetes, even though both groups attained normal blood sugar levels many years after pregnancy,” lead author Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, MS, MPH, said in an interview about a community-based prospective cohort study of young adults followed for up to 25 years, which was published in Circulation (2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047320).

Previous studies have reported a higher risk of heart disease in women who had gestational diabetes (GD) and later developed type 2 diabetes, but they didn’t elucidate whether that risk carried over in GD patients whose glycemic levels were normal after pregnancy. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines specified that a history of GD increases women’s risk for coronary artery calcification (CAC).

This study analyzed data of 1,133 women ages 18-30 enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who had no diabetes in the baseline years of 1985-1986 and had given birth at least once in the ensuing 25 years. They had glucose tolerance testing at baseline and up to five times through the study period, along with evaluation for GD status and coronary artery calcification CAC measurements at least once at years 15, 20 and 25 (2001-2011).

CARDIA enrolled 5,155 young Black and White men and women ages 18-30 from four distinct geographic areas: Birmingham, Ala.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Oakland, Calif. About 52% of the study population was Black.

Of the women who’d given birth, 139 (12%) had GD. Their average age at follow-up was 47.6 years, and 25% of the GD patients (34) had CAC, compared with 15% (149/994) in the non-GD group.

Dr. Gunderson noted that the same relative risk for CAC applied to women who had GD and went on to develop prediabetes or were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up.
 

Risks persist even in normoglycemia

In the GD group, the adjusted hazard ratio for having CAC with normoglycemia was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.09). The researchers also calculated HRs for prediabetes and incident diabetes: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.06-2.24) in no-GD and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.09-4.17) for GD for prediabetes; and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.62) and 2.02 (95% CI, 0.98-4.19), respectively, for incident diabetes (P = .003).

“This means the risk of heart disease may be increased substantially in women with a history of gestational diabetes and may not diminish even if their blood-sugar levels remain normal for years later,” said Dr. Gunderson, an epidemiologist and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland.

“The clinical implications of our findings are that women with previous GD may benefit from enhanced traditional CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factor testing – i.e., for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperinsulinemia,” Dr. Gunderson said. “Our findings also suggest that it could be beneficial to incorporate history of GD into risk calculators to improve CVD risk stratification and prevention.”
 

Strong findings argue for more frequent CVD screening

These study results may be the strongest data to date on the long-term effects of GD, said Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s the strongest in the sense in that it’s sponsored, involved four different communities in different parts of the United States, enrolled individuals when they were young and followed them, and saw very few patients drop out for such a long-term study.” The study reported follow-up data on 72% of patients at 25 years, a rate Dr. Deedwania noted was “excellent.”

“Patients who have had GD should be screened aggressively – for not only diabetes, but other cardiovascular risk factors – early on to minimize the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is a very important point of this study,” he added. In the absence of a clinical guideline, Dr. Deedwania suggested women with GD might have screening for CV risk factors every 5-7 years depending on their risk profile, but emphasized that parameter isn’t settled.

Future research should focus on the link between GD and CVD risk, Dr. Gunderson said. “Research is needed to better characterize the severity of GD in relation to CVD outcomes, and to identify critical pregnancy-related periods to modify cardiometabolic risk.” The latter would include life-course studies across the full pregnancy continuum from preconception to lactation. “Interventions for primary prevention of CVD and the importance of modifiable lifestyle behaviors with the highest relevance to reduce both diabetes and CVD risks during the first year post partum merit increased research investigation,” she added.

Future studies might also explore the role of inflammation in the GD-CVD relationship, Dr. Deedwania said. “My hypothesis is, and it’s purely a hypothesis, that perhaps the presence of coronary artery calcification scores score in these individuals who were described as having normal glucose but who could be at risk could very well be related to the beginning of inflammation.”

Dr. Gunderson and Dr. Deedwania have no financial relationships to disclose. The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Women who’ve had gestational diabetes are 40% more likely to develop coronary artery calcification later in life than are women haven’t, and attaining normal glycemic levels doesn’t diminish their midlife risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

“The new finding from this study is that women with gestational diabetes had twice the risk of coronary artery calcium, compared to women who never had gestational diabetes, even though both groups attained normal blood sugar levels many years after pregnancy,” lead author Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, MS, MPH, said in an interview about a community-based prospective cohort study of young adults followed for up to 25 years, which was published in Circulation (2021 Feb 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047320).

Previous studies have reported a higher risk of heart disease in women who had gestational diabetes (GD) and later developed type 2 diabetes, but they didn’t elucidate whether that risk carried over in GD patients whose glycemic levels were normal after pregnancy. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines specified that a history of GD increases women’s risk for coronary artery calcification (CAC).

This study analyzed data of 1,133 women ages 18-30 enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study who had no diabetes in the baseline years of 1985-1986 and had given birth at least once in the ensuing 25 years. They had glucose tolerance testing at baseline and up to five times through the study period, along with evaluation for GD status and coronary artery calcification CAC measurements at least once at years 15, 20 and 25 (2001-2011).

CARDIA enrolled 5,155 young Black and White men and women ages 18-30 from four distinct geographic areas: Birmingham, Ala.; Chicago; Minneapolis; and Oakland, Calif. About 52% of the study population was Black.

Of the women who’d given birth, 139 (12%) had GD. Their average age at follow-up was 47.6 years, and 25% of the GD patients (34) had CAC, compared with 15% (149/994) in the non-GD group.

Dr. Gunderson noted that the same relative risk for CAC applied to women who had GD and went on to develop prediabetes or were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up.
 

Risks persist even in normoglycemia

In the GD group, the adjusted hazard ratio for having CAC with normoglycemia was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.09). The researchers also calculated HRs for prediabetes and incident diabetes: 1.5 (95% CI, 1.06-2.24) in no-GD and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.09-4.17) for GD for prediabetes; and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.3-3.62) and 2.02 (95% CI, 0.98-4.19), respectively, for incident diabetes (P = .003).

“This means the risk of heart disease may be increased substantially in women with a history of gestational diabetes and may not diminish even if their blood-sugar levels remain normal for years later,” said Dr. Gunderson, an epidemiologist and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland.

“The clinical implications of our findings are that women with previous GD may benefit from enhanced traditional CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factor testing – i.e., for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperinsulinemia,” Dr. Gunderson said. “Our findings also suggest that it could be beneficial to incorporate history of GD into risk calculators to improve CVD risk stratification and prevention.”
 

Strong findings argue for more frequent CVD screening

These study results may be the strongest data to date on the long-term effects of GD, said Prakash Deedwania, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s the strongest in the sense in that it’s sponsored, involved four different communities in different parts of the United States, enrolled individuals when they were young and followed them, and saw very few patients drop out for such a long-term study.” The study reported follow-up data on 72% of patients at 25 years, a rate Dr. Deedwania noted was “excellent.”

“Patients who have had GD should be screened aggressively – for not only diabetes, but other cardiovascular risk factors – early on to minimize the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease is a very important point of this study,” he added. In the absence of a clinical guideline, Dr. Deedwania suggested women with GD might have screening for CV risk factors every 5-7 years depending on their risk profile, but emphasized that parameter isn’t settled.

Future research should focus on the link between GD and CVD risk, Dr. Gunderson said. “Research is needed to better characterize the severity of GD in relation to CVD outcomes, and to identify critical pregnancy-related periods to modify cardiometabolic risk.” The latter would include life-course studies across the full pregnancy continuum from preconception to lactation. “Interventions for primary prevention of CVD and the importance of modifiable lifestyle behaviors with the highest relevance to reduce both diabetes and CVD risks during the first year post partum merit increased research investigation,” she added.

Future studies might also explore the role of inflammation in the GD-CVD relationship, Dr. Deedwania said. “My hypothesis is, and it’s purely a hypothesis, that perhaps the presence of coronary artery calcification scores score in these individuals who were described as having normal glucose but who could be at risk could very well be related to the beginning of inflammation.”

Dr. Gunderson and Dr. Deedwania have no financial relationships to disclose. The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is often an essential component of the treatment regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer, but it can be very pricey.

“Out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of enzymes for Medicare beneficiaries can be as high as $1,000,” commented Arjun Gupta, MD, an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.

This can contribute to financial toxicity for patients who already have a high symptom burden and distress. The high cost of this supportive care has been underappreciated, he said.

In addition to its use for patients with pancreatic cancer, PERT is also prescribed to patients with chronic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. These enzymes can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition for patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, he explained.

“Out-of-pocket costs for two large pancreas enzyme capsules, which are often required for a meal, may be $15. And these need to be taken at every meal and may be more expensive than the meal itself,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta led a new study which showed that, among Medicare beneficiaries, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations. Patients’ costs, including deductibles and coinsurance, ranged from $853 to $1,536.

The out-of-pocket costs were lower after patients met the deductible ($673; range, $527-$1,210) and continued to decrease after reaching catastrophic coverage ($135; range, $105-$242).

The findings were presented at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Gupta noted that there has been a lot of publicity about very expensive anticancer drugs, but little has been said about the costs of products used in supportive care. “While it’s true that many patients cannot afford the drugs, there are patient-assistance programs where they can often get them free of charge,” he said. “But supportive care agents, such as those for constipation or the enzymes – all of those can nickel and dime you and end up being very costly.”

These agents add substantially to the drug cost burden. “Some patients also need insulin, which is also insanely expensive,” he said.

One of the reasons for the high cost of PERT is that there are very few options, and all the available products are brand-name agents. Dr. Gupta noted that clinicians often underprescribe pancreatic enzymes in clinical practice. “Because of this, we wanted to look at what are the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients directly when they’re prescribed an optimal regimen of pancreatic enzymes,” he said.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Gupta and colleagues assessed PERT costs using the Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020. Point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation were calculated among Part D standalone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.

Costs were then assessed using three scenarios: the standard-benefit design, with a $435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met; 25% coinsurance to fill a prescription after the deductible while in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out of pocket; and 5% coinsurance once catastrophic coverage is reached.

Across 3,974 plans nationwide, four formulations in 17 different doses were covered by Medicare plans during the study period. Doses ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 lipase units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89.

The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840.

Dr. Gupta noted that a “good-sized meal often requires 80,000 units of lipase, or two of the very largest pills. Of note, these pills need to be taken meal after meal every meal throughout a patient’s life.”

Prescribers and dietitians try to find the least expensive options, including patient-assistance programs, but in the end, they are sometimes forced to underprescribe. “Some patients will go and buy over-the-counter pancreatic enzyme supplements, and it seems like a good way to cut costs,” said Dr. Gupta, “but it is not recommended for people with pancreatic cancer.”

The problem with these formulations is that they are not regulated. “The enzyme content in them is also minuscule, in the range of hundreds of units instead of the 50,000 units needed per meal,” he said. “Patients end up spending much more for ineffective therapies.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is often an essential component of the treatment regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer, but it can be very pricey.

“Out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of enzymes for Medicare beneficiaries can be as high as $1,000,” commented Arjun Gupta, MD, an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.

This can contribute to financial toxicity for patients who already have a high symptom burden and distress. The high cost of this supportive care has been underappreciated, he said.

In addition to its use for patients with pancreatic cancer, PERT is also prescribed to patients with chronic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. These enzymes can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition for patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, he explained.

“Out-of-pocket costs for two large pancreas enzyme capsules, which are often required for a meal, may be $15. And these need to be taken at every meal and may be more expensive than the meal itself,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta led a new study which showed that, among Medicare beneficiaries, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations. Patients’ costs, including deductibles and coinsurance, ranged from $853 to $1,536.

The out-of-pocket costs were lower after patients met the deductible ($673; range, $527-$1,210) and continued to decrease after reaching catastrophic coverage ($135; range, $105-$242).

The findings were presented at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Gupta noted that there has been a lot of publicity about very expensive anticancer drugs, but little has been said about the costs of products used in supportive care. “While it’s true that many patients cannot afford the drugs, there are patient-assistance programs where they can often get them free of charge,” he said. “But supportive care agents, such as those for constipation or the enzymes – all of those can nickel and dime you and end up being very costly.”

These agents add substantially to the drug cost burden. “Some patients also need insulin, which is also insanely expensive,” he said.

One of the reasons for the high cost of PERT is that there are very few options, and all the available products are brand-name agents. Dr. Gupta noted that clinicians often underprescribe pancreatic enzymes in clinical practice. “Because of this, we wanted to look at what are the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients directly when they’re prescribed an optimal regimen of pancreatic enzymes,” he said.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Gupta and colleagues assessed PERT costs using the Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020. Point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation were calculated among Part D standalone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.

Costs were then assessed using three scenarios: the standard-benefit design, with a $435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met; 25% coinsurance to fill a prescription after the deductible while in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out of pocket; and 5% coinsurance once catastrophic coverage is reached.

Across 3,974 plans nationwide, four formulations in 17 different doses were covered by Medicare plans during the study period. Doses ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 lipase units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89.

The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840.

Dr. Gupta noted that a “good-sized meal often requires 80,000 units of lipase, or two of the very largest pills. Of note, these pills need to be taken meal after meal every meal throughout a patient’s life.”

Prescribers and dietitians try to find the least expensive options, including patient-assistance programs, but in the end, they are sometimes forced to underprescribe. “Some patients will go and buy over-the-counter pancreatic enzyme supplements, and it seems like a good way to cut costs,” said Dr. Gupta, “but it is not recommended for people with pancreatic cancer.”

The problem with these formulations is that they are not regulated. “The enzyme content in them is also minuscule, in the range of hundreds of units instead of the 50,000 units needed per meal,” he said. “Patients end up spending much more for ineffective therapies.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is often an essential component of the treatment regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer, but it can be very pricey.

“Out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of enzymes for Medicare beneficiaries can be as high as $1,000,” commented Arjun Gupta, MD, an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.

This can contribute to financial toxicity for patients who already have a high symptom burden and distress. The high cost of this supportive care has been underappreciated, he said.

In addition to its use for patients with pancreatic cancer, PERT is also prescribed to patients with chronic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. These enzymes can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition for patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, he explained.

“Out-of-pocket costs for two large pancreas enzyme capsules, which are often required for a meal, may be $15. And these need to be taken at every meal and may be more expensive than the meal itself,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Gupta led a new study which showed that, among Medicare beneficiaries, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations. Patients’ costs, including deductibles and coinsurance, ranged from $853 to $1,536.

The out-of-pocket costs were lower after patients met the deductible ($673; range, $527-$1,210) and continued to decrease after reaching catastrophic coverage ($135; range, $105-$242).

The findings were presented at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Dr. Gupta noted that there has been a lot of publicity about very expensive anticancer drugs, but little has been said about the costs of products used in supportive care. “While it’s true that many patients cannot afford the drugs, there are patient-assistance programs where they can often get them free of charge,” he said. “But supportive care agents, such as those for constipation or the enzymes – all of those can nickel and dime you and end up being very costly.”

These agents add substantially to the drug cost burden. “Some patients also need insulin, which is also insanely expensive,” he said.

One of the reasons for the high cost of PERT is that there are very few options, and all the available products are brand-name agents. Dr. Gupta noted that clinicians often underprescribe pancreatic enzymes in clinical practice. “Because of this, we wanted to look at what are the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients directly when they’re prescribed an optimal regimen of pancreatic enzymes,” he said.
 

Study details

For their study, Dr. Gupta and colleagues assessed PERT costs using the Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020. Point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation were calculated among Part D standalone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.

Costs were then assessed using three scenarios: the standard-benefit design, with a $435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met; 25% coinsurance to fill a prescription after the deductible while in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out of pocket; and 5% coinsurance once catastrophic coverage is reached.

Across 3,974 plans nationwide, four formulations in 17 different doses were covered by Medicare plans during the study period. Doses ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 lipase units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89.

The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840.

Dr. Gupta noted that a “good-sized meal often requires 80,000 units of lipase, or two of the very largest pills. Of note, these pills need to be taken meal after meal every meal throughout a patient’s life.”

Prescribers and dietitians try to find the least expensive options, including patient-assistance programs, but in the end, they are sometimes forced to underprescribe. “Some patients will go and buy over-the-counter pancreatic enzyme supplements, and it seems like a good way to cut costs,” said Dr. Gupta, “but it is not recommended for people with pancreatic cancer.”

The problem with these formulations is that they are not regulated. “The enzyme content in them is also minuscule, in the range of hundreds of units instead of the 50,000 units needed per meal,” he said. “Patients end up spending much more for ineffective therapies.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity mitigated the impact of high body mass index (BMI) on cardiovascular risk factors, but not overall cardiovascular disease risk, according to an observational study of half a million individuals.

Despite the historically high rates of overweight and obesity worldwide, some evidence suggests that cardiorespiratory fitness could reduce the effects of excess weight on cardiovascular disease risk, wrote Pedro L. Valenzuela, PhD, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, and colleagues.

“To clarify the existence of the ‘fat-but-fit’ [or ‘elevated BMI but active’] paradox, in this observational study, we assessed the joint association between different BMI categories and physical activity levels, respectively, and the prevalence of major CVD risk factors,” they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers identified 527,662 adults aged 18-64 years who were insured by an occupational risk–prevention company and underwent annual medical exams as part of their coverage. The average age of the participants was 42 years, 32% were women, and the average BMI was 26.2 kg/m².

The participants were categorized as normal weight (42%), overweight (41%), and obese (18%), and their activity levels were categorized as inactive (64%), insufficiently active (12%), and regularly active (24%). In addition, 30% had hypercholesterolemia, 15% had hypertension, and 3% had diabetes.

Overall, compared with inactivity, insufficient activity or regular activity reduced CVD risk factors within each BMI category, and subgroups. “However, regular/insufficient PA did not compensate for the negative effects of overweight/obesity, as individuals with overweight/obesity were at greater CVD risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of PA levels,” the researchers said. Compared with active normal-weight men, the odds ratios for hypertension in active overweight men and active obese men were 1.98 and 4.93, respectively; the odds ratios for hypercholesterolemia were 1.61 and 2.03, respectively, and the odds ratios for diabetes were 1.33 and 3.62, respectively (P < .001 for all). Trends were similar for women.

The study results were limited by the cross-sectional design; inability to control for participants’ diet, and the reliance of self-reports of leisure-time physical activity. However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size and “refute the notion that a physically active lifestyle can completely negate the deleterious effects of overweight/obesity,” the researchers said.

Although increasing physical activity should remain a priority for health policies, “weight loss per se should remain a primary target for health policies aimed at reducing CVD risk in people with overweight/obesity,” they concluded.
 

Interpret findings with caution

“With the ever-increasing public health problem of overweight and obesity, it is useful to assess any measure or measures that can have a favorable or adverse effect on cardiometabolic risk factors and the risk of CVD” Prakash Deedwania, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Deedwania said he was not entirely surprised by the study findings. “The investigators have correlated only the self-reported level of physical activity (which is not always reliable) to the presence of three cardiac risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes.”

The study “is not comparable to prior reports that had shown a favorable impact of carefully assessed cardiorespiratory fitness with the risk of CVD,” Dr. Deedwania noted. “However, this is one of the largest population-wide surveillance studies of more than a half million active workers across Spain, and it does show that, despite self-reported physical activity, overweight and obesity are associated with higher risks of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia,” he explained.

“The main message of these findings is that, although physical activity does have a dose-dependent favorable impact on CV risk, the main public health intervention to reduce the risk of CV risk should focus on weight loss in overweight and obese individuals,” Dr. Deedwania emphasized.

“Future studies should focus on comparing various levels of daily activities and routine exercise such as walking, bicycling, etc., with the beneficial impact on cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight and obese individuals,” he said.

Dr. Valenzuela disclosed support from the University of Alcalá. Research by corresponding author Dr. Lucia was funded by grants from Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and Fondos FEDER. Dr. Deedwania had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Physical activity mitigated the impact of high body mass index (BMI) on cardiovascular risk factors, but not overall cardiovascular disease risk, according to an observational study of half a million individuals.

Despite the historically high rates of overweight and obesity worldwide, some evidence suggests that cardiorespiratory fitness could reduce the effects of excess weight on cardiovascular disease risk, wrote Pedro L. Valenzuela, PhD, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, and colleagues.

“To clarify the existence of the ‘fat-but-fit’ [or ‘elevated BMI but active’] paradox, in this observational study, we assessed the joint association between different BMI categories and physical activity levels, respectively, and the prevalence of major CVD risk factors,” they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers identified 527,662 adults aged 18-64 years who were insured by an occupational risk–prevention company and underwent annual medical exams as part of their coverage. The average age of the participants was 42 years, 32% were women, and the average BMI was 26.2 kg/m².

The participants were categorized as normal weight (42%), overweight (41%), and obese (18%), and their activity levels were categorized as inactive (64%), insufficiently active (12%), and regularly active (24%). In addition, 30% had hypercholesterolemia, 15% had hypertension, and 3% had diabetes.

Overall, compared with inactivity, insufficient activity or regular activity reduced CVD risk factors within each BMI category, and subgroups. “However, regular/insufficient PA did not compensate for the negative effects of overweight/obesity, as individuals with overweight/obesity were at greater CVD risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of PA levels,” the researchers said. Compared with active normal-weight men, the odds ratios for hypertension in active overweight men and active obese men were 1.98 and 4.93, respectively; the odds ratios for hypercholesterolemia were 1.61 and 2.03, respectively, and the odds ratios for diabetes were 1.33 and 3.62, respectively (P < .001 for all). Trends were similar for women.

The study results were limited by the cross-sectional design; inability to control for participants’ diet, and the reliance of self-reports of leisure-time physical activity. However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size and “refute the notion that a physically active lifestyle can completely negate the deleterious effects of overweight/obesity,” the researchers said.

Although increasing physical activity should remain a priority for health policies, “weight loss per se should remain a primary target for health policies aimed at reducing CVD risk in people with overweight/obesity,” they concluded.
 

Interpret findings with caution

“With the ever-increasing public health problem of overweight and obesity, it is useful to assess any measure or measures that can have a favorable or adverse effect on cardiometabolic risk factors and the risk of CVD” Prakash Deedwania, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Deedwania said he was not entirely surprised by the study findings. “The investigators have correlated only the self-reported level of physical activity (which is not always reliable) to the presence of three cardiac risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes.”

The study “is not comparable to prior reports that had shown a favorable impact of carefully assessed cardiorespiratory fitness with the risk of CVD,” Dr. Deedwania noted. “However, this is one of the largest population-wide surveillance studies of more than a half million active workers across Spain, and it does show that, despite self-reported physical activity, overweight and obesity are associated with higher risks of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia,” he explained.

“The main message of these findings is that, although physical activity does have a dose-dependent favorable impact on CV risk, the main public health intervention to reduce the risk of CV risk should focus on weight loss in overweight and obese individuals,” Dr. Deedwania emphasized.

“Future studies should focus on comparing various levels of daily activities and routine exercise such as walking, bicycling, etc., with the beneficial impact on cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight and obese individuals,” he said.

Dr. Valenzuela disclosed support from the University of Alcalá. Research by corresponding author Dr. Lucia was funded by grants from Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and Fondos FEDER. Dr. Deedwania had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Physical activity mitigated the impact of high body mass index (BMI) on cardiovascular risk factors, but not overall cardiovascular disease risk, according to an observational study of half a million individuals.

Despite the historically high rates of overweight and obesity worldwide, some evidence suggests that cardiorespiratory fitness could reduce the effects of excess weight on cardiovascular disease risk, wrote Pedro L. Valenzuela, PhD, of the University of Alcalá, Madrid, and colleagues.

“To clarify the existence of the ‘fat-but-fit’ [or ‘elevated BMI but active’] paradox, in this observational study, we assessed the joint association between different BMI categories and physical activity levels, respectively, and the prevalence of major CVD risk factors,” they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers identified 527,662 adults aged 18-64 years who were insured by an occupational risk–prevention company and underwent annual medical exams as part of their coverage. The average age of the participants was 42 years, 32% were women, and the average BMI was 26.2 kg/m².

The participants were categorized as normal weight (42%), overweight (41%), and obese (18%), and their activity levels were categorized as inactive (64%), insufficiently active (12%), and regularly active (24%). In addition, 30% had hypercholesterolemia, 15% had hypertension, and 3% had diabetes.

Overall, compared with inactivity, insufficient activity or regular activity reduced CVD risk factors within each BMI category, and subgroups. “However, regular/insufficient PA did not compensate for the negative effects of overweight/obesity, as individuals with overweight/obesity were at greater CVD risk than their peers with normal weight, irrespective of PA levels,” the researchers said. Compared with active normal-weight men, the odds ratios for hypertension in active overweight men and active obese men were 1.98 and 4.93, respectively; the odds ratios for hypercholesterolemia were 1.61 and 2.03, respectively, and the odds ratios for diabetes were 1.33 and 3.62, respectively (P < .001 for all). Trends were similar for women.

The study results were limited by the cross-sectional design; inability to control for participants’ diet, and the reliance of self-reports of leisure-time physical activity. However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size and “refute the notion that a physically active lifestyle can completely negate the deleterious effects of overweight/obesity,” the researchers said.

Although increasing physical activity should remain a priority for health policies, “weight loss per se should remain a primary target for health policies aimed at reducing CVD risk in people with overweight/obesity,” they concluded.
 

Interpret findings with caution

“With the ever-increasing public health problem of overweight and obesity, it is useful to assess any measure or measures that can have a favorable or adverse effect on cardiometabolic risk factors and the risk of CVD” Prakash Deedwania, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Deedwania said he was not entirely surprised by the study findings. “The investigators have correlated only the self-reported level of physical activity (which is not always reliable) to the presence of three cardiac risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes.”

The study “is not comparable to prior reports that had shown a favorable impact of carefully assessed cardiorespiratory fitness with the risk of CVD,” Dr. Deedwania noted. “However, this is one of the largest population-wide surveillance studies of more than a half million active workers across Spain, and it does show that, despite self-reported physical activity, overweight and obesity are associated with higher risks of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia,” he explained.

“The main message of these findings is that, although physical activity does have a dose-dependent favorable impact on CV risk, the main public health intervention to reduce the risk of CV risk should focus on weight loss in overweight and obese individuals,” Dr. Deedwania emphasized.

“Future studies should focus on comparing various levels of daily activities and routine exercise such as walking, bicycling, etc., with the beneficial impact on cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight and obese individuals,” he said.

Dr. Valenzuela disclosed support from the University of Alcalá. Research by corresponding author Dr. Lucia was funded by grants from Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and Fondos FEDER. Dr. Deedwania had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Physicians treating patients with IBD typically focus on disease and symptom management along with quality of life measures, but the latter are not the final word on patient well-being. Social well-being is another outcome that can more accurately portray a patient’s satisfaction with their treatment.

That was the message delivered by Laurie Keefer, PhD, at a session on diet, stress, health literacy, and disparities in IBD treatment at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association. “When we talk about disease management, we’re talking about these outcomes of mucosal healing, remission, and lack of hospitalizations, but we don’t always talk about wellness,” said Dr. Keefer, director of psychobehavioral research in the department of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Keefer advocated for incorporating measures that focus on the patient’s ability to feel fulfilled, pursue happiness, and contribute to the community. “Wellness is defined as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. It’s a holistic definition, not merely the absence of those things,” she said during her talk.

Social determinants of health, such as income, inequality, health literacy, numeracy, financial stress, social connections, community, place of resonance, and housing coresidents, play important roles.

“Subjective well-being is a state in which an individual feels they are able to do work productively and creatively, have relationships, and contribute to their community. We want them to thrive. We want them to live well. We want them to reach their potential. There’s no reason you cannot reach your potential even though you’re living with IBD,” said Dr. Keefer.

Subjective well-being doesn’t replace quality of life assessment. “Absolutely, quality of life is an important metric, [but I want to] make a plug that maybe we should start to add subjective well-being into these outcome measures,” said Dr. Keefer.

The approach does away with specific measures of health, employment, financial security, or even living situation. “It takes away all of those things we just assume are part of being well. It measures it differently. It measures what makes us happy, divided by the degree of happiness we obtain,” said Dr. Keefer. She presented examples from a study her group is conducting that showed patients’ responses to what made them want to be well. “Some people want to be well to take care of their children or families or a parent, some people want to be well so they can go adventure skydiving, other people just want to be able to exercise and take care of their health. That’s what the target needs to be for wellness. In that sense, wellness is an achievement of best health possible in all domains, not just one. It’s a lifelong pursuit. It forces us to ask not just ‘Are my patient’s symptoms gone? Are they in clinical remission? Are they in histological remission? Are they in deep remission?’ but ‘Is my patient thriving? Are they meeting their potential? Are they getting what they want out of treatment? Are they happy?’ ”

Quality of life measures can provide some insight, but they are limited because they are anchored in physical symptoms, and they focus on a narrow, recent window, usually the past week. “You can imagine that as symptoms improve, those metrics kind of improve, and it looks like quality of life is great. But that’s not always the case, and we’re really missing an opportunity to go deeper. It’s also less sensitive when somebody is in remission, so it’s also very difficult to continue that proactive [approach] of thriving and living well when you’re already coming up positive on quality of life indices,” said Dr. Keefer.

Subjective well-being measures ignore physical symptoms, and focus instead on questions like the patient’s ability to work, socialize, and maintain relationships with family, and whether the patient feels able to contribute meaningfully to society. The measure is insensitive to factors such as inflammation, trauma, or changes to medication. As a result, measures can be used much less frequently – every 6 months, or even once a year.

Subjective well-being can also rely on the patient to define well-being, and that makes it more culturally sensitive. “It can allow for people to be well in whatever way they think they want to be well,” said Dr. Keefer.

There are various resources for measuring subjective well-being. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has guidelines for measuring subjective well-being. The National Institutes of Health PROMIS includes useful measures of psychological well-being, positive affect, and general life satisfaction; they are available for free and include 6-8 items. Other useful measures include the Satisfaction with Life scale, the Positive and Negative Affect scale, and the Harmony in Life scale. “All of those have been well validated and used internationally as measures of well-being,” said Dr. Keefer.

Physicians can also address patients directly, asking them about how satisfied they are with their life. “You’re opening up that discussion to ask them not just, ‘How is your IBD and how is your IBD affecting your work?’ but ‘How is your life going?’ You’re proactively trying to help your patients thrive,” said Dr. Keefer.

Session moderators praised Dr. Keefer’s presentation as an appropriate wrap-up to talks that looked at stress, diet, economic disparities, health literacy, and numeracy.

“We capped it all with a discussion around what is well-being. We often talk about biologics or medicines or surgery when it comes to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but what about holistic wellness? It’s all of this. It’s the medication piece, but it’s all of these other pillars involved in the process as well. I think looking at this from many different angles is very important so that patients can achieve the best quality of life possible,” said comoderator Tina Aswani Omprakash, a patient advocate who is pursuing a master’s degree in public health at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine.

Physicians treating patients with IBD typically focus on disease and symptom management along with quality of life measures, but the latter are not the final word on patient well-being. Social well-being is another outcome that can more accurately portray a patient’s satisfaction with their treatment.

That was the message delivered by Laurie Keefer, PhD, at a session on diet, stress, health literacy, and disparities in IBD treatment at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association. “When we talk about disease management, we’re talking about these outcomes of mucosal healing, remission, and lack of hospitalizations, but we don’t always talk about wellness,” said Dr. Keefer, director of psychobehavioral research in the department of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Keefer advocated for incorporating measures that focus on the patient’s ability to feel fulfilled, pursue happiness, and contribute to the community. “Wellness is defined as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. It’s a holistic definition, not merely the absence of those things,” she said during her talk.

Social determinants of health, such as income, inequality, health literacy, numeracy, financial stress, social connections, community, place of resonance, and housing coresidents, play important roles.

“Subjective well-being is a state in which an individual feels they are able to do work productively and creatively, have relationships, and contribute to their community. We want them to thrive. We want them to live well. We want them to reach their potential. There’s no reason you cannot reach your potential even though you’re living with IBD,” said Dr. Keefer.

Subjective well-being doesn’t replace quality of life assessment. “Absolutely, quality of life is an important metric, [but I want to] make a plug that maybe we should start to add subjective well-being into these outcome measures,” said Dr. Keefer.

The approach does away with specific measures of health, employment, financial security, or even living situation. “It takes away all of those things we just assume are part of being well. It measures it differently. It measures what makes us happy, divided by the degree of happiness we obtain,” said Dr. Keefer. She presented examples from a study her group is conducting that showed patients’ responses to what made them want to be well. “Some people want to be well to take care of their children or families or a parent, some people want to be well so they can go adventure skydiving, other people just want to be able to exercise and take care of their health. That’s what the target needs to be for wellness. In that sense, wellness is an achievement of best health possible in all domains, not just one. It’s a lifelong pursuit. It forces us to ask not just ‘Are my patient’s symptoms gone? Are they in clinical remission? Are they in histological remission? Are they in deep remission?’ but ‘Is my patient thriving? Are they meeting their potential? Are they getting what they want out of treatment? Are they happy?’ ”

Quality of life measures can provide some insight, but they are limited because they are anchored in physical symptoms, and they focus on a narrow, recent window, usually the past week. “You can imagine that as symptoms improve, those metrics kind of improve, and it looks like quality of life is great. But that’s not always the case, and we’re really missing an opportunity to go deeper. It’s also less sensitive when somebody is in remission, so it’s also very difficult to continue that proactive [approach] of thriving and living well when you’re already coming up positive on quality of life indices,” said Dr. Keefer.

Subjective well-being measures ignore physical symptoms, and focus instead on questions like the patient’s ability to work, socialize, and maintain relationships with family, and whether the patient feels able to contribute meaningfully to society. The measure is insensitive to factors such as inflammation, trauma, or changes to medication. As a result, measures can be used much less frequently – every 6 months, or even once a year.

Subjective well-being can also rely on the patient to define well-being, and that makes it more culturally sensitive. “It can allow for people to be well in whatever way they think they want to be well,” said Dr. Keefer.

There are various resources for measuring subjective well-being. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has guidelines for measuring subjective well-being. The National Institutes of Health PROMIS includes useful measures of psychological well-being, positive affect, and general life satisfaction; they are available for free and include 6-8 items. Other useful measures include the Satisfaction with Life scale, the Positive and Negative Affect scale, and the Harmony in Life scale. “All of those have been well validated and used internationally as measures of well-being,” said Dr. Keefer.

Physicians can also address patients directly, asking them about how satisfied they are with their life. “You’re opening up that discussion to ask them not just, ‘How is your IBD and how is your IBD affecting your work?’ but ‘How is your life going?’ You’re proactively trying to help your patients thrive,” said Dr. Keefer.

Session moderators praised Dr. Keefer’s presentation as an appropriate wrap-up to talks that looked at stress, diet, economic disparities, health literacy, and numeracy.

“We capped it all with a discussion around what is well-being. We often talk about biologics or medicines or surgery when it comes to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but what about holistic wellness? It’s all of this. It’s the medication piece, but it’s all of these other pillars involved in the process as well. I think looking at this from many different angles is very important so that patients can achieve the best quality of life possible,” said comoderator Tina Aswani Omprakash, a patient advocate who is pursuing a master’s degree in public health at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine.

Physicians treating patients with IBD typically focus on disease and symptom management along with quality of life measures, but the latter are not the final word on patient well-being. Social well-being is another outcome that can more accurately portray a patient’s satisfaction with their treatment.

That was the message delivered by Laurie Keefer, PhD, at a session on diet, stress, health literacy, and disparities in IBD treatment at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association. “When we talk about disease management, we’re talking about these outcomes of mucosal healing, remission, and lack of hospitalizations, but we don’t always talk about wellness,” said Dr. Keefer, director of psychobehavioral research in the department of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Keefer advocated for incorporating measures that focus on the patient’s ability to feel fulfilled, pursue happiness, and contribute to the community. “Wellness is defined as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. It’s a holistic definition, not merely the absence of those things,” she said during her talk.

Social determinants of health, such as income, inequality, health literacy, numeracy, financial stress, social connections, community, place of resonance, and housing coresidents, play important roles.

“Subjective well-being is a state in which an individual feels they are able to do work productively and creatively, have relationships, and contribute to their community. We want them to thrive. We want them to live well. We want them to reach their potential. There’s no reason you cannot reach your potential even though you’re living with IBD,” said Dr. Keefer.

Subjective well-being doesn’t replace quality of life assessment. “Absolutely, quality of life is an important metric, [but I want to] make a plug that maybe we should start to add subjective well-being into these outcome measures,” said Dr. Keefer.

The approach does away with specific measures of health, employment, financial security, or even living situation. “It takes away all of those things we just assume are part of being well. It measures it differently. It measures what makes us happy, divided by the degree of happiness we obtain,” said Dr. Keefer. She presented examples from a study her group is conducting that showed patients’ responses to what made them want to be well. “Some people want to be well to take care of their children or families or a parent, some people want to be well so they can go adventure skydiving, other people just want to be able to exercise and take care of their health. That’s what the target needs to be for wellness. In that sense, wellness is an achievement of best health possible in all domains, not just one. It’s a lifelong pursuit. It forces us to ask not just ‘Are my patient’s symptoms gone? Are they in clinical remission? Are they in histological remission? Are they in deep remission?’ but ‘Is my patient thriving? Are they meeting their potential? Are they getting what they want out of treatment? Are they happy?’ ”

Quality of life measures can provide some insight, but they are limited because they are anchored in physical symptoms, and they focus on a narrow, recent window, usually the past week. “You can imagine that as symptoms improve, those metrics kind of improve, and it looks like quality of life is great. But that’s not always the case, and we’re really missing an opportunity to go deeper. It’s also less sensitive when somebody is in remission, so it’s also very difficult to continue that proactive [approach] of thriving and living well when you’re already coming up positive on quality of life indices,” said Dr. Keefer.

Subjective well-being measures ignore physical symptoms, and focus instead on questions like the patient’s ability to work, socialize, and maintain relationships with family, and whether the patient feels able to contribute meaningfully to society. The measure is insensitive to factors such as inflammation, trauma, or changes to medication. As a result, measures can be used much less frequently – every 6 months, or even once a year.

Subjective well-being can also rely on the patient to define well-being, and that makes it more culturally sensitive. “It can allow for people to be well in whatever way they think they want to be well,” said Dr. Keefer.

There are various resources for measuring subjective well-being. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has guidelines for measuring subjective well-being. The National Institutes of Health PROMIS includes useful measures of psychological well-being, positive affect, and general life satisfaction; they are available for free and include 6-8 items. Other useful measures include the Satisfaction with Life scale, the Positive and Negative Affect scale, and the Harmony in Life scale. “All of those have been well validated and used internationally as measures of well-being,” said Dr. Keefer.

Physicians can also address patients directly, asking them about how satisfied they are with their life. “You’re opening up that discussion to ask them not just, ‘How is your IBD and how is your IBD affecting your work?’ but ‘How is your life going?’ You’re proactively trying to help your patients thrive,” said Dr. Keefer.

Session moderators praised Dr. Keefer’s presentation as an appropriate wrap-up to talks that looked at stress, diet, economic disparities, health literacy, and numeracy.

“We capped it all with a discussion around what is well-being. We often talk about biologics or medicines or surgery when it comes to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but what about holistic wellness? It’s all of this. It’s the medication piece, but it’s all of these other pillars involved in the process as well. I think looking at this from many different angles is very important so that patients can achieve the best quality of life possible,” said comoderator Tina Aswani Omprakash, a patient advocate who is pursuing a master’s degree in public health at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine.

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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