The Food and Drug Administration has clarified its guidance on administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.

Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.

“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.

The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.

Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.

The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.

Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
 

Pregnancy concerns

Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.

The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.

An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has clarified its guidance on administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.

Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.

“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.

The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.

Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.

The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.

Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
 

Pregnancy concerns

Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.

The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.

An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has clarified its guidance on administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.

Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.

“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.

The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.

Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.

The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.

Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
 

Pregnancy concerns

Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.

The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.

An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.

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

In mid-November, Pfizer/BioNTech were the first with surprising positive protection interim data for their coronavirus vaccine, BNT162b2. A week later, Moderna released interim efficacy results showing its coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, also protected patients from developing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Both studies included mostly healthy adults. A diverse ethnic and racial vaccinated population was included. A reasonable number of persons aged over 65 years, and persons with stable compromising medical conditions were included. Adolescents aged 16 years and over were included. Younger adolescents have been vaccinated or such studies are in the planning or early implementation stage as 2020 came to a close.

These are new and revolutionary vaccines, although the ability to inject mRNA into animals dates back to 1990, technological advances today make it a reality.¹ Traditional vaccines typically involve injection with antigens such as purified proteins or polysaccharides or inactivated/attenuated viruses. mRNA vaccines work differently. They do not contain antigens. Instead, they contain a blueprint for the antigen in the form of genetic material, mRNA. In the case of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the mRNA provides the genetic information to synthesize the spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. Each type of vaccine is packaged in proprietary lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA from rapid degradation, and the nanoparticles serve as an adjuvant to attract immune cells to the site of injection. (The properties of the respective lipid nanoparticle packaging may be the factor that impacts storage requirements discussed below.) When injected into muscle (myocyte), the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA inside are taken into muscle cells, where the cytoplasmic ribosomes detect and decode the mRNA resulting in the production of the spike protein antigen. It should be noted that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus, where the genetic information (DNA) of a cell is located, and can’t be reproduced or integrated into the DNA. The antigen is exported to the myocyte cell surface where the immune system’s antigen presenting cells detect the protein, ingest it, and take it to regional lymph nodes where interactions with T cells and B cells results in antibodies, T cell–mediated immunity, and generation of immune memory T cells and B cells. A particular subset of T cells – cytotoxic or killer T cells – destroy cells that have been infected by a pathogen. The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine from Pfizer was reported to induce powerful cytotoxic T-cell responses. Results for Moderna’s vaccine had not been reported at the time this column was prepared, but I anticipate the same positive results.

The revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced. This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab – and it can be done incredibly fast. It is reported that the mRNA code for the vaccine by Moderna was made in 2 days and production development was completed in about 2 months.²

A 2007 World Health Organization report noted that infectious diseases are emerging at “the historically unprecedented rate of one per year.”³ Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Zika, Ebola, and avian and swine flu are recent examples. For most vaccines against emerging diseases, the challenge is about speed: developing and manufacturing a vaccine and getting it to persons who need it as quickly as possible. The current seasonal flu vaccine takes about 6 months to develop; it takes years for most of the traditional vaccines. That’s why once the infrastructure is in place, mRNA vaccines may prove to offer a big advantage as vaccines against emerging pathogens.
 

Early efficacy results have been surprising

Both vaccines were reported to produce about 95% efficacy in the final analysis. That was unexpectedly high because most vaccines for respiratory illness achieve efficacy of 60%-80%, e.g., flu vaccines. However, the efficacy rate may drop as time goes by because stimulation of short-term immunity would be in the earliest reported results.

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 cases is an important aspect of a coronavirus vaccine, but preventing severe illness is especially important considering that severe cases can result in prolonged intubation/artificial ventilation, prolonged disability and death. Pfizer/BioNTech had not released any data on the breakdown of severe cases as this column was finalized. In Moderna’s clinical trial, a secondary endpoint analyzed severe cases of COVID-19 and included 30 severe cases (as defined in the study protocol) in this analysis. All 30 cases occurred in the placebo group and none in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated group. In the Pfizer/BioNTech trial there were too few cases of severe illness to calculate efficacy.

Duration of immunity and need to revaccinate after initial primary vaccination are unknowns. Study of induction of B- and T-cell memory and levels of long-term protection have not been reported thus far.
 

Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long term?

These will be the first-ever mRNA vaccines brought to market for humans. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies had to prove there were no immediate or short-term negative adverse effects from the vaccines. The companies reported that their independent data-monitoring committees hadn’t “reported any serious safety concerns.” However, fairly significant local reactions at the site of injection, fever, malaise, and fatigue occur with modest frequency following vaccinations with these products, reportedly in 10%-15% of vaccinees. Overall, the immediate reaction profile appears to be more severe than what occurs following seasonal influenza vaccination. When mass inoculations with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines begins, we will know virtually nothing about their long-term side effects. The possibility of systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions, persistence of the induced immunogen expression, development of autoreactive antibodies, and toxic effects of delivery components have been raised as theoretical concerns.^4-6 None of these theoretical risks have been observed to date and postmarketing phase 4 safety monitoring studies are in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the companies that produce the vaccines. This is a risk public health authorities are willing to take because the risk to benefit calculation strongly favors taking theoretical risks, compared with clear benefits in preventing severe illnesses and death.

What about availability?

Pfizer/BioNTech expects to be able to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna expects to produce 20 million doses by the end of 2020, and 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021. Storage requirements are inherent to the composition of the vaccines with their differing lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 has to be stored and transported at –80° C, which requires specialized freezers, which most doctors’ offices and pharmacies are unlikely to have on site, or dry ice containers. Once the vaccine is thawed, it can only remain in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 will be much easier to distribute. The vaccine is stable in a standard freezer at –20° C for up to 6 months, in a refrigerator for up to 30 days within that 6-month shelf life, and at room temperature for up to 12 hours.

Timelines and testing other vaccines

Strong efficacy data from the two leading SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and emergency-use authorization Food and Drug Administration approval suggest the window for testing additional vaccine candidates in the United States could soon start to close. Of the more than 200 vaccines in development for SARS-CoV-2, at least 7 have a chance of gathering pivotal data before the front-runners become broadly available.

Testing diverse vaccine candidates, based on different technologies, is important for ensuring sufficient supply and could lead to products with tolerability and safety profiles that make them better suited, or more attractive, to subsets of the population. Different vaccine antigens and technologies also may yield different durations of protection, a question that will not be answered until long after the first products are on the market.

AstraZeneca enrolled about 23,000 subjects into its two phase 3 trials of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): a 40,000-subject U.S. trial and a 10,000-subject study in Brazil. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222, developed with the University of Oxford (England), uses a replication defective simian adenovirus vector called ChAdOx1.AZD1222 which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. After injection, the viral vector delivers recombinant DNA that is decoded to mRNA, followed by mRNA decoding to become a protein. A serendipitous manufacturing error for the first 3,000 doses resulted in a half dose for those subjects before the error was discovered. Full doses were given to those subjects on second injections and those subjects showed 90% efficacy. Subjects who received 2 full doses showed 62% efficacy. A vaccine cannot be licensed based on 3,000 subjects so AstraZeneca has started a new phase 3 trial involving many more subjects to receive the combination lower dose followed by the full dose.

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) started its phase 3 trial evaluating a single dose of JNJ-78436735 in September. Phase 3 data may be reported by the end of2020. In November, J&J announced it was starting a second phase 3 trial to test two doses of the candidate. J&J’s JNJ-78436735 encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which is one of the two adenovirus vectors used in Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine reported to have 90% efficacy at an early interim analysis.

Sanofi and Novavax are both developing protein-based vaccines, a proven modality. Sanofi, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline started a phase 1/2 clinical trial in the Fall 2020 with plans to commence a phase 3 trial in late December. Sanofi developed the protein ingredients and GlaxoSmithKline added one of their novel adjuvants. Novavax expects data from a U.K. phase 3 trial of NVX-CoV2373 in early 2021 and began a U.S. phase 3 study in late November. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was gearing up to start a U.S. phase 2/3 trial of DNA vaccine INO-4800 by the end of 2020.

After Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac has the next most advanced mRNA vaccine. It was planned that a phase 2b/3 trial of CVnCoV would be conducted in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Sanofi is also developing a mRNA vaccine as a second product in addition to its protein vaccine.

Vaxxinity planned to begin phase 3 testing of UB-612, a multitope peptide–based vaccine, in Brazil by the end of 2020.

However, emergency-use authorizations for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could hinder trial recruitment in at least two ways. Given the gravity of the pandemic, some stakeholders believe it would be ethical to unblind ongoing trials to give subjects the opportunity to switch to a vaccine proven to be effective. Even if unblinding doesn’t occur, as the two authorized vaccines start to become widely available, volunteering for clinical trials may become less attractive.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Pichichero at [email protected].

References

1. Wolff JA et al. Science. 1990 Mar 23. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.

2. Jackson LA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.

3. Prentice T and Reinders LT. The world health report 2007. (Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2007).

4. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

5. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

6. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

In mid-November, Pfizer/BioNTech were the first with surprising positive protection interim data for their coronavirus vaccine, BNT162b2. A week later, Moderna released interim efficacy results showing its coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, also protected patients from developing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Both studies included mostly healthy adults. A diverse ethnic and racial vaccinated population was included. A reasonable number of persons aged over 65 years, and persons with stable compromising medical conditions were included. Adolescents aged 16 years and over were included. Younger adolescents have been vaccinated or such studies are in the planning or early implementation stage as 2020 came to a close.

These are new and revolutionary vaccines, although the ability to inject mRNA into animals dates back to 1990, technological advances today make it a reality.¹ Traditional vaccines typically involve injection with antigens such as purified proteins or polysaccharides or inactivated/attenuated viruses. mRNA vaccines work differently. They do not contain antigens. Instead, they contain a blueprint for the antigen in the form of genetic material, mRNA. In the case of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the mRNA provides the genetic information to synthesize the spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. Each type of vaccine is packaged in proprietary lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA from rapid degradation, and the nanoparticles serve as an adjuvant to attract immune cells to the site of injection. (The properties of the respective lipid nanoparticle packaging may be the factor that impacts storage requirements discussed below.) When injected into muscle (myocyte), the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA inside are taken into muscle cells, where the cytoplasmic ribosomes detect and decode the mRNA resulting in the production of the spike protein antigen. It should be noted that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus, where the genetic information (DNA) of a cell is located, and can’t be reproduced or integrated into the DNA. The antigen is exported to the myocyte cell surface where the immune system’s antigen presenting cells detect the protein, ingest it, and take it to regional lymph nodes where interactions with T cells and B cells results in antibodies, T cell–mediated immunity, and generation of immune memory T cells and B cells. A particular subset of T cells – cytotoxic or killer T cells – destroy cells that have been infected by a pathogen. The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine from Pfizer was reported to induce powerful cytotoxic T-cell responses. Results for Moderna’s vaccine had not been reported at the time this column was prepared, but I anticipate the same positive results.

The revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced. This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab – and it can be done incredibly fast. It is reported that the mRNA code for the vaccine by Moderna was made in 2 days and production development was completed in about 2 months.²

A 2007 World Health Organization report noted that infectious diseases are emerging at “the historically unprecedented rate of one per year.”³ Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Zika, Ebola, and avian and swine flu are recent examples. For most vaccines against emerging diseases, the challenge is about speed: developing and manufacturing a vaccine and getting it to persons who need it as quickly as possible. The current seasonal flu vaccine takes about 6 months to develop; it takes years for most of the traditional vaccines. That’s why once the infrastructure is in place, mRNA vaccines may prove to offer a big advantage as vaccines against emerging pathogens.
 

Early efficacy results have been surprising

Both vaccines were reported to produce about 95% efficacy in the final analysis. That was unexpectedly high because most vaccines for respiratory illness achieve efficacy of 60%-80%, e.g., flu vaccines. However, the efficacy rate may drop as time goes by because stimulation of short-term immunity would be in the earliest reported results.

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 cases is an important aspect of a coronavirus vaccine, but preventing severe illness is especially important considering that severe cases can result in prolonged intubation/artificial ventilation, prolonged disability and death. Pfizer/BioNTech had not released any data on the breakdown of severe cases as this column was finalized. In Moderna’s clinical trial, a secondary endpoint analyzed severe cases of COVID-19 and included 30 severe cases (as defined in the study protocol) in this analysis. All 30 cases occurred in the placebo group and none in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated group. In the Pfizer/BioNTech trial there were too few cases of severe illness to calculate efficacy.

Duration of immunity and need to revaccinate after initial primary vaccination are unknowns. Study of induction of B- and T-cell memory and levels of long-term protection have not been reported thus far.
 

Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long term?

These will be the first-ever mRNA vaccines brought to market for humans. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies had to prove there were no immediate or short-term negative adverse effects from the vaccines. The companies reported that their independent data-monitoring committees hadn’t “reported any serious safety concerns.” However, fairly significant local reactions at the site of injection, fever, malaise, and fatigue occur with modest frequency following vaccinations with these products, reportedly in 10%-15% of vaccinees. Overall, the immediate reaction profile appears to be more severe than what occurs following seasonal influenza vaccination. When mass inoculations with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines begins, we will know virtually nothing about their long-term side effects. The possibility of systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions, persistence of the induced immunogen expression, development of autoreactive antibodies, and toxic effects of delivery components have been raised as theoretical concerns.^4-6 None of these theoretical risks have been observed to date and postmarketing phase 4 safety monitoring studies are in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the companies that produce the vaccines. This is a risk public health authorities are willing to take because the risk to benefit calculation strongly favors taking theoretical risks, compared with clear benefits in preventing severe illnesses and death.

What about availability?

Pfizer/BioNTech expects to be able to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna expects to produce 20 million doses by the end of 2020, and 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021. Storage requirements are inherent to the composition of the vaccines with their differing lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 has to be stored and transported at –80° C, which requires specialized freezers, which most doctors’ offices and pharmacies are unlikely to have on site, or dry ice containers. Once the vaccine is thawed, it can only remain in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 will be much easier to distribute. The vaccine is stable in a standard freezer at –20° C for up to 6 months, in a refrigerator for up to 30 days within that 6-month shelf life, and at room temperature for up to 12 hours.

Timelines and testing other vaccines

Strong efficacy data from the two leading SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and emergency-use authorization Food and Drug Administration approval suggest the window for testing additional vaccine candidates in the United States could soon start to close. Of the more than 200 vaccines in development for SARS-CoV-2, at least 7 have a chance of gathering pivotal data before the front-runners become broadly available.

Testing diverse vaccine candidates, based on different technologies, is important for ensuring sufficient supply and could lead to products with tolerability and safety profiles that make them better suited, or more attractive, to subsets of the population. Different vaccine antigens and technologies also may yield different durations of protection, a question that will not be answered until long after the first products are on the market.

AstraZeneca enrolled about 23,000 subjects into its two phase 3 trials of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): a 40,000-subject U.S. trial and a 10,000-subject study in Brazil. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222, developed with the University of Oxford (England), uses a replication defective simian adenovirus vector called ChAdOx1.AZD1222 which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. After injection, the viral vector delivers recombinant DNA that is decoded to mRNA, followed by mRNA decoding to become a protein. A serendipitous manufacturing error for the first 3,000 doses resulted in a half dose for those subjects before the error was discovered. Full doses were given to those subjects on second injections and those subjects showed 90% efficacy. Subjects who received 2 full doses showed 62% efficacy. A vaccine cannot be licensed based on 3,000 subjects so AstraZeneca has started a new phase 3 trial involving many more subjects to receive the combination lower dose followed by the full dose.

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) started its phase 3 trial evaluating a single dose of JNJ-78436735 in September. Phase 3 data may be reported by the end of2020. In November, J&J announced it was starting a second phase 3 trial to test two doses of the candidate. J&J’s JNJ-78436735 encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which is one of the two adenovirus vectors used in Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine reported to have 90% efficacy at an early interim analysis.

Sanofi and Novavax are both developing protein-based vaccines, a proven modality. Sanofi, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline started a phase 1/2 clinical trial in the Fall 2020 with plans to commence a phase 3 trial in late December. Sanofi developed the protein ingredients and GlaxoSmithKline added one of their novel adjuvants. Novavax expects data from a U.K. phase 3 trial of NVX-CoV2373 in early 2021 and began a U.S. phase 3 study in late November. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was gearing up to start a U.S. phase 2/3 trial of DNA vaccine INO-4800 by the end of 2020.

After Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac has the next most advanced mRNA vaccine. It was planned that a phase 2b/3 trial of CVnCoV would be conducted in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Sanofi is also developing a mRNA vaccine as a second product in addition to its protein vaccine.

Vaxxinity planned to begin phase 3 testing of UB-612, a multitope peptide–based vaccine, in Brazil by the end of 2020.

However, emergency-use authorizations for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could hinder trial recruitment in at least two ways. Given the gravity of the pandemic, some stakeholders believe it would be ethical to unblind ongoing trials to give subjects the opportunity to switch to a vaccine proven to be effective. Even if unblinding doesn’t occur, as the two authorized vaccines start to become widely available, volunteering for clinical trials may become less attractive.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Pichichero at [email protected].

References

1. Wolff JA et al. Science. 1990 Mar 23. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.

2. Jackson LA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.

3. Prentice T and Reinders LT. The world health report 2007. (Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2007).

4. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

5. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

6. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

In mid-November, Pfizer/BioNTech were the first with surprising positive protection interim data for their coronavirus vaccine, BNT162b2. A week later, Moderna released interim efficacy results showing its coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, also protected patients from developing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Both studies included mostly healthy adults. A diverse ethnic and racial vaccinated population was included. A reasonable number of persons aged over 65 years, and persons with stable compromising medical conditions were included. Adolescents aged 16 years and over were included. Younger adolescents have been vaccinated or such studies are in the planning or early implementation stage as 2020 came to a close.

These are new and revolutionary vaccines, although the ability to inject mRNA into animals dates back to 1990, technological advances today make it a reality.¹ Traditional vaccines typically involve injection with antigens such as purified proteins or polysaccharides or inactivated/attenuated viruses. mRNA vaccines work differently. They do not contain antigens. Instead, they contain a blueprint for the antigen in the form of genetic material, mRNA. In the case of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the mRNA provides the genetic information to synthesize the spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. Each type of vaccine is packaged in proprietary lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA from rapid degradation, and the nanoparticles serve as an adjuvant to attract immune cells to the site of injection. (The properties of the respective lipid nanoparticle packaging may be the factor that impacts storage requirements discussed below.) When injected into muscle (myocyte), the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA inside are taken into muscle cells, where the cytoplasmic ribosomes detect and decode the mRNA resulting in the production of the spike protein antigen. It should be noted that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus, where the genetic information (DNA) of a cell is located, and can’t be reproduced or integrated into the DNA. The antigen is exported to the myocyte cell surface where the immune system’s antigen presenting cells detect the protein, ingest it, and take it to regional lymph nodes where interactions with T cells and B cells results in antibodies, T cell–mediated immunity, and generation of immune memory T cells and B cells. A particular subset of T cells – cytotoxic or killer T cells – destroy cells that have been infected by a pathogen. The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine from Pfizer was reported to induce powerful cytotoxic T-cell responses. Results for Moderna’s vaccine had not been reported at the time this column was prepared, but I anticipate the same positive results.

The revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced. This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab – and it can be done incredibly fast. It is reported that the mRNA code for the vaccine by Moderna was made in 2 days and production development was completed in about 2 months.²

A 2007 World Health Organization report noted that infectious diseases are emerging at “the historically unprecedented rate of one per year.”³ Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Zika, Ebola, and avian and swine flu are recent examples. For most vaccines against emerging diseases, the challenge is about speed: developing and manufacturing a vaccine and getting it to persons who need it as quickly as possible. The current seasonal flu vaccine takes about 6 months to develop; it takes years for most of the traditional vaccines. That’s why once the infrastructure is in place, mRNA vaccines may prove to offer a big advantage as vaccines against emerging pathogens.
 

Early efficacy results have been surprising

Both vaccines were reported to produce about 95% efficacy in the final analysis. That was unexpectedly high because most vaccines for respiratory illness achieve efficacy of 60%-80%, e.g., flu vaccines. However, the efficacy rate may drop as time goes by because stimulation of short-term immunity would be in the earliest reported results.

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 cases is an important aspect of a coronavirus vaccine, but preventing severe illness is especially important considering that severe cases can result in prolonged intubation/artificial ventilation, prolonged disability and death. Pfizer/BioNTech had not released any data on the breakdown of severe cases as this column was finalized. In Moderna’s clinical trial, a secondary endpoint analyzed severe cases of COVID-19 and included 30 severe cases (as defined in the study protocol) in this analysis. All 30 cases occurred in the placebo group and none in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated group. In the Pfizer/BioNTech trial there were too few cases of severe illness to calculate efficacy.

Duration of immunity and need to revaccinate after initial primary vaccination are unknowns. Study of induction of B- and T-cell memory and levels of long-term protection have not been reported thus far.
 

Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long term?

These will be the first-ever mRNA vaccines brought to market for humans. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies had to prove there were no immediate or short-term negative adverse effects from the vaccines. The companies reported that their independent data-monitoring committees hadn’t “reported any serious safety concerns.” However, fairly significant local reactions at the site of injection, fever, malaise, and fatigue occur with modest frequency following vaccinations with these products, reportedly in 10%-15% of vaccinees. Overall, the immediate reaction profile appears to be more severe than what occurs following seasonal influenza vaccination. When mass inoculations with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines begins, we will know virtually nothing about their long-term side effects. The possibility of systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions, persistence of the induced immunogen expression, development of autoreactive antibodies, and toxic effects of delivery components have been raised as theoretical concerns.^4-6 None of these theoretical risks have been observed to date and postmarketing phase 4 safety monitoring studies are in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the companies that produce the vaccines. This is a risk public health authorities are willing to take because the risk to benefit calculation strongly favors taking theoretical risks, compared with clear benefits in preventing severe illnesses and death.

What about availability?

Pfizer/BioNTech expects to be able to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna expects to produce 20 million doses by the end of 2020, and 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021. Storage requirements are inherent to the composition of the vaccines with their differing lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 has to be stored and transported at –80° C, which requires specialized freezers, which most doctors’ offices and pharmacies are unlikely to have on site, or dry ice containers. Once the vaccine is thawed, it can only remain in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 will be much easier to distribute. The vaccine is stable in a standard freezer at –20° C for up to 6 months, in a refrigerator for up to 30 days within that 6-month shelf life, and at room temperature for up to 12 hours.

Timelines and testing other vaccines

Strong efficacy data from the two leading SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and emergency-use authorization Food and Drug Administration approval suggest the window for testing additional vaccine candidates in the United States could soon start to close. Of the more than 200 vaccines in development for SARS-CoV-2, at least 7 have a chance of gathering pivotal data before the front-runners become broadly available.

Testing diverse vaccine candidates, based on different technologies, is important for ensuring sufficient supply and could lead to products with tolerability and safety profiles that make them better suited, or more attractive, to subsets of the population. Different vaccine antigens and technologies also may yield different durations of protection, a question that will not be answered until long after the first products are on the market.

AstraZeneca enrolled about 23,000 subjects into its two phase 3 trials of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): a 40,000-subject U.S. trial and a 10,000-subject study in Brazil. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222, developed with the University of Oxford (England), uses a replication defective simian adenovirus vector called ChAdOx1.AZD1222 which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. After injection, the viral vector delivers recombinant DNA that is decoded to mRNA, followed by mRNA decoding to become a protein. A serendipitous manufacturing error for the first 3,000 doses resulted in a half dose for those subjects before the error was discovered. Full doses were given to those subjects on second injections and those subjects showed 90% efficacy. Subjects who received 2 full doses showed 62% efficacy. A vaccine cannot be licensed based on 3,000 subjects so AstraZeneca has started a new phase 3 trial involving many more subjects to receive the combination lower dose followed by the full dose.

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) started its phase 3 trial evaluating a single dose of JNJ-78436735 in September. Phase 3 data may be reported by the end of2020. In November, J&J announced it was starting a second phase 3 trial to test two doses of the candidate. J&J’s JNJ-78436735 encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which is one of the two adenovirus vectors used in Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine reported to have 90% efficacy at an early interim analysis.

Sanofi and Novavax are both developing protein-based vaccines, a proven modality. Sanofi, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline started a phase 1/2 clinical trial in the Fall 2020 with plans to commence a phase 3 trial in late December. Sanofi developed the protein ingredients and GlaxoSmithKline added one of their novel adjuvants. Novavax expects data from a U.K. phase 3 trial of NVX-CoV2373 in early 2021 and began a U.S. phase 3 study in late November. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was gearing up to start a U.S. phase 2/3 trial of DNA vaccine INO-4800 by the end of 2020.

After Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac has the next most advanced mRNA vaccine. It was planned that a phase 2b/3 trial of CVnCoV would be conducted in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Sanofi is also developing a mRNA vaccine as a second product in addition to its protein vaccine.

Vaxxinity planned to begin phase 3 testing of UB-612, a multitope peptide–based vaccine, in Brazil by the end of 2020.

However, emergency-use authorizations for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could hinder trial recruitment in at least two ways. Given the gravity of the pandemic, some stakeholders believe it would be ethical to unblind ongoing trials to give subjects the opportunity to switch to a vaccine proven to be effective. Even if unblinding doesn’t occur, as the two authorized vaccines start to become widely available, volunteering for clinical trials may become less attractive.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Pichichero at [email protected].

References

1. Wolff JA et al. Science. 1990 Mar 23. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.

2. Jackson LA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.

3. Prentice T and Reinders LT. The world health report 2007. (Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2007).

4. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

5. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

6. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

Dermatologists frequently learn about skin conditions that are directly linked to diet. For example, we know that nutritional deficiencies can impact the hair, skin, and nails, and that celiac disease manifests with dermatitis herpetiformis of the skin. Patients commonly ask their dermatologists about the impact of diet on their skin. There are many outdated myths, but research on the subject is increasingly demonstrating important associations. Dermatologists must become familiar with the data on this topic so that we can provide informed counseling for our patients. This article reviews the current literature on associations between diet and 3 common cutaneous conditions—acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis [AD]—and provides tips on how to best address our patients’ questions on this topic.

Acne

Studies increasingly support an association between a high glycemic diet (foods that lead to a spike in serum glucose) and acne; Bowe et al1 provided an excellent summary of the topic in 2010. This year, a large prospective cohort study of more than 24,000 participants demonstrated an association between adult acne and a diet high in milk, sugary beverages and foods, and fatty foods.2 In prospective cohort studies of more than 6000 adolescent girls and 4000 adolescent boys, Adebamowo et al3^,4 demonstrated a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne. Whey protein supplementation also has been implicated in acne flares.^5,6 The biological mechanism of the impact of high glycemic index foods and acne is believed to be mainly via activation of the insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway, which promotes androgen synthesis and increases androgen bioavailability via decreased synthesis of sex hormone binding globulin.^1,2 Insulinlike growth factor 1 also stimulates its downstream target, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), leading to activation of antiapoptotic and proliferation signaling, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and inflammation causing acne.² Penso et al² noted that patients with IGF-1 deficiency (Laron syndrome) never develop acne unless treated with exogenous IGF-1, further supporting its role in acne formation.⁷ There currently is a paucity of randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of diet on acne.

Psoriasis 

The literature consistently shows that obesity is a predisposing factor for psoriasis. Additionally, weight gain may cause flares of existing psoriasis.⁸ Promotion of a healthy diet is an important factor in the management of obesity, alongside physical activity and, in some cases, medication and bariatric surgery.⁹ Patients with psoriasis who are overweight have been shown to experience improvement in their psoriasis after weight loss secondary to diet and exercise.^8,10 The joint American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines recommend that dermatologists advise patients to practice a healthy lifestyle including a healthy diet and communicate with a patient’s primary care provider so they can be appropriately evaluated and treated for comorbidities including metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.¹¹ In the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, investigators found an inverse correlation between psoriasis severity and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, which the authors conclude supports the hypothesis that this may slow the progression of psoriasis.¹² In a single meta-analysis, it was reported that patients with psoriasis have a 3-fold increased risk for celiac disease compared to the general population.1³ It remains unknown if these data are generalizable to the US population. Dermatologists should consider screening patients with psoriasis for celiac disease based on reported symptoms. When suspected, it is necessary to order appropriate serologies and consider referral to gastroenterology prior to recommending a gluten-free diet, as elimination of gluten prior to testing may lead to false-negative results.

Atopic Dermatitis

Patients and parents/guardians of children with AD often ask about the impact of diet on the condition. A small minority of patients may experience flares of AD due to ongoing, non–IgE-mediated allergen exposure.¹⁴ Diet as a trigger for flares should be suspected in children with persistent, moderate to severe AD. In these patients, allergen avoidance may lead to improvement but not resolution of AD. Allergens ordered from most common to least common are the following: eggs, milk, peanuts/tree nuts, shellfish, soy, and wheat.¹⁵ Additionally, it is important to note that children with AD are at higher risk for developing life-threatening, IgE-mediated food allergies compared to the general population (37% vs 6.8%).^16,17 The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) study led to a paradigm shift in prevention of peanut allergies in high-risk children (ie, those with severe AD and/or egg allergy), providing data to support the idea that early introduction of allergenic foods such as peanuts may prevent severe allergies.¹⁸ Further studies are necessary to clarify the population in which allergen testing and recommendations on food avoidance are warranted vs early introduction.¹⁹

Conclusion

Early data support the relationship between diet and many common dermatologic conditions, including acne, psoriasis, and AD. Dermatologists should be familiar with the evidence supporting the relationship between diet and various skin conditions to best answer patients’ questions and counsel as appropriate. It is important for dermatologists to continue to stay up-to-date on the literature on this subject as new data emerge. Knowledge about the relationship between diet and skin allows dermatologists to not only support our patients’ skin health but their overall health as well.

Dermatologists frequently learn about skin conditions that are directly linked to diet. For example, we know that nutritional deficiencies can impact the hair, skin, and nails, and that celiac disease manifests with dermatitis herpetiformis of the skin. Patients commonly ask their dermatologists about the impact of diet on their skin. There are many outdated myths, but research on the subject is increasingly demonstrating important associations. Dermatologists must become familiar with the data on this topic so that we can provide informed counseling for our patients. This article reviews the current literature on associations between diet and 3 common cutaneous conditions—acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis [AD]—and provides tips on how to best address our patients’ questions on this topic.

Acne

Studies increasingly support an association between a high glycemic diet (foods that lead to a spike in serum glucose) and acne; Bowe et al1 provided an excellent summary of the topic in 2010. This year, a large prospective cohort study of more than 24,000 participants demonstrated an association between adult acne and a diet high in milk, sugary beverages and foods, and fatty foods.2 In prospective cohort studies of more than 6000 adolescent girls and 4000 adolescent boys, Adebamowo et al3^,4 demonstrated a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne. Whey protein supplementation also has been implicated in acne flares.^5,6 The biological mechanism of the impact of high glycemic index foods and acne is believed to be mainly via activation of the insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway, which promotes androgen synthesis and increases androgen bioavailability via decreased synthesis of sex hormone binding globulin.^1,2 Insulinlike growth factor 1 also stimulates its downstream target, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), leading to activation of antiapoptotic and proliferation signaling, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and inflammation causing acne.² Penso et al² noted that patients with IGF-1 deficiency (Laron syndrome) never develop acne unless treated with exogenous IGF-1, further supporting its role in acne formation.⁷ There currently is a paucity of randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of diet on acne.

Psoriasis 

The literature consistently shows that obesity is a predisposing factor for psoriasis. Additionally, weight gain may cause flares of existing psoriasis.⁸ Promotion of a healthy diet is an important factor in the management of obesity, alongside physical activity and, in some cases, medication and bariatric surgery.⁹ Patients with psoriasis who are overweight have been shown to experience improvement in their psoriasis after weight loss secondary to diet and exercise.^8,10 The joint American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines recommend that dermatologists advise patients to practice a healthy lifestyle including a healthy diet and communicate with a patient’s primary care provider so they can be appropriately evaluated and treated for comorbidities including metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.¹¹ In the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, investigators found an inverse correlation between psoriasis severity and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, which the authors conclude supports the hypothesis that this may slow the progression of psoriasis.¹² In a single meta-analysis, it was reported that patients with psoriasis have a 3-fold increased risk for celiac disease compared to the general population.1³ It remains unknown if these data are generalizable to the US population. Dermatologists should consider screening patients with psoriasis for celiac disease based on reported symptoms. When suspected, it is necessary to order appropriate serologies and consider referral to gastroenterology prior to recommending a gluten-free diet, as elimination of gluten prior to testing may lead to false-negative results.

Atopic Dermatitis

Patients and parents/guardians of children with AD often ask about the impact of diet on the condition. A small minority of patients may experience flares of AD due to ongoing, non–IgE-mediated allergen exposure.¹⁴ Diet as a trigger for flares should be suspected in children with persistent, moderate to severe AD. In these patients, allergen avoidance may lead to improvement but not resolution of AD. Allergens ordered from most common to least common are the following: eggs, milk, peanuts/tree nuts, shellfish, soy, and wheat.¹⁵ Additionally, it is important to note that children with AD are at higher risk for developing life-threatening, IgE-mediated food allergies compared to the general population (37% vs 6.8%).^16,17 The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) study led to a paradigm shift in prevention of peanut allergies in high-risk children (ie, those with severe AD and/or egg allergy), providing data to support the idea that early introduction of allergenic foods such as peanuts may prevent severe allergies.¹⁸ Further studies are necessary to clarify the population in which allergen testing and recommendations on food avoidance are warranted vs early introduction.¹⁹

Conclusion

Early data support the relationship between diet and many common dermatologic conditions, including acne, psoriasis, and AD. Dermatologists should be familiar with the evidence supporting the relationship between diet and various skin conditions to best answer patients’ questions and counsel as appropriate. It is important for dermatologists to continue to stay up-to-date on the literature on this subject as new data emerge. Knowledge about the relationship between diet and skin allows dermatologists to not only support our patients’ skin health but their overall health as well.

Dermatologists frequently learn about skin conditions that are directly linked to diet. For example, we know that nutritional deficiencies can impact the hair, skin, and nails, and that celiac disease manifests with dermatitis herpetiformis of the skin. Patients commonly ask their dermatologists about the impact of diet on their skin. There are many outdated myths, but research on the subject is increasingly demonstrating important associations. Dermatologists must become familiar with the data on this topic so that we can provide informed counseling for our patients. This article reviews the current literature on associations between diet and 3 common cutaneous conditions—acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis [AD]—and provides tips on how to best address our patients’ questions on this topic.

Acne

Studies increasingly support an association between a high glycemic diet (foods that lead to a spike in serum glucose) and acne; Bowe et al1 provided an excellent summary of the topic in 2010. This year, a large prospective cohort study of more than 24,000 participants demonstrated an association between adult acne and a diet high in milk, sugary beverages and foods, and fatty foods.2 In prospective cohort studies of more than 6000 adolescent girls and 4000 adolescent boys, Adebamowo et al3^,4 demonstrated a correlation between skim milk consumption and acne. Whey protein supplementation also has been implicated in acne flares.^5,6 The biological mechanism of the impact of high glycemic index foods and acne is believed to be mainly via activation of the insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) pathway, which promotes androgen synthesis and increases androgen bioavailability via decreased synthesis of sex hormone binding globulin.^1,2 Insulinlike growth factor 1 also stimulates its downstream target, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), leading to activation of antiapoptotic and proliferation signaling, ultimately resulting in oxidative stress and inflammation causing acne.² Penso et al² noted that patients with IGF-1 deficiency (Laron syndrome) never develop acne unless treated with exogenous IGF-1, further supporting its role in acne formation.⁷ There currently is a paucity of randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of diet on acne.

Psoriasis 

The literature consistently shows that obesity is a predisposing factor for psoriasis. Additionally, weight gain may cause flares of existing psoriasis.⁸ Promotion of a healthy diet is an important factor in the management of obesity, alongside physical activity and, in some cases, medication and bariatric surgery.⁹ Patients with psoriasis who are overweight have been shown to experience improvement in their psoriasis after weight loss secondary to diet and exercise.^8,10 The joint American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines recommend that dermatologists advise patients to practice a healthy lifestyle including a healthy diet and communicate with a patient’s primary care provider so they can be appropriately evaluated and treated for comorbidities including metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia.¹¹ In the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, investigators found an inverse correlation between psoriasis severity and adherence to a Mediterranean diet, which the authors conclude supports the hypothesis that this may slow the progression of psoriasis.¹² In a single meta-analysis, it was reported that patients with psoriasis have a 3-fold increased risk for celiac disease compared to the general population.1³ It remains unknown if these data are generalizable to the US population. Dermatologists should consider screening patients with psoriasis for celiac disease based on reported symptoms. When suspected, it is necessary to order appropriate serologies and consider referral to gastroenterology prior to recommending a gluten-free diet, as elimination of gluten prior to testing may lead to false-negative results.

Atopic Dermatitis

Patients and parents/guardians of children with AD often ask about the impact of diet on the condition. A small minority of patients may experience flares of AD due to ongoing, non–IgE-mediated allergen exposure.¹⁴ Diet as a trigger for flares should be suspected in children with persistent, moderate to severe AD. In these patients, allergen avoidance may lead to improvement but not resolution of AD. Allergens ordered from most common to least common are the following: eggs, milk, peanuts/tree nuts, shellfish, soy, and wheat.¹⁵ Additionally, it is important to note that children with AD are at higher risk for developing life-threatening, IgE-mediated food allergies compared to the general population (37% vs 6.8%).^16,17 The LEAP (Learning Early about Peanut Allergy) study led to a paradigm shift in prevention of peanut allergies in high-risk children (ie, those with severe AD and/or egg allergy), providing data to support the idea that early introduction of allergenic foods such as peanuts may prevent severe allergies.¹⁸ Further studies are necessary to clarify the population in which allergen testing and recommendations on food avoidance are warranted vs early introduction.¹⁹

Conclusion

Early data support the relationship between diet and many common dermatologic conditions, including acne, psoriasis, and AD. Dermatologists should be familiar with the evidence supporting the relationship between diet and various skin conditions to best answer patients’ questions and counsel as appropriate. It is important for dermatologists to continue to stay up-to-date on the literature on this subject as new data emerge. Knowledge about the relationship between diet and skin allows dermatologists to not only support our patients’ skin health but their overall health as well.

Questions on fecal calprotectin’s usefulness as a measure of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) dominated the viewer chat after the opening session of Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2020 Annual Meeting.

The measure is often used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from IBD.

Panelists differed on how predictive fecal calprotectin is for disease status and what information the stool concentration of calprotectin imparts. Several experts discussed calprotectin cutoffs for when disease would be considered in remission or when a colonoscopy is needed for evaluation.

Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said about the noninvasive test: “It can be very tricky to use.”
 

Variation by time of day, by person

He explained that there can be individual differences, and that the concentration may be different in the first stool of the day compared with the last.

“There’s a lot of variation, which makes the cutoffs good on average for populations but a little bit more difficult to apply to individuals,” he said.

Dr. Sands said the marker has more merit for people with large-bowel inflammation but is not quite as accurate a marker for patients with exclusively small-bowel inflammation.

Moderator Steven Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, asked Dr. Sands what his next move would be if a patient had a concentration of 160 mcg/mg.

Sands called concentrations between 150 and 250 mcg/mg “a gray zone.”

“That usually indicates for me a need to evaluate with a colonoscopy,” he said.

“If we’re talking about using fecal calprotectin to rule out IBS, the cutoff there is more like 50, 55. But that isn’t how we’re generally using it as IBD practitioners.”

Sunanda V. Kane, MD, MSPH, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that 160 mcg/mg in a patient with IBD “means to me likely some minimal disease but not enough for me to make drastic changes to a medical regimen.”

She said about the measure, “We need to understand its limitations as well as strengths. Right now, insurance companies consider it ‘experimental’ and a lot of companies will not cover it. Ironically, they will cover the cost of a colonoscopy but not a stool test.”
 

Use as a benchmark

Dr. Sands said if he’s doing a colonoscopy to establish that the patient is in remission and knows what the fecal calprotectin level is at the time, he uses it as a benchmark for the future to judge whether the patient is deviating from remission.

He added that the negative predictive value of fecal calprotectin with a cutoff of 100 mcg/mg is “actually pretty good so you can avoid a number of unnecessary colonoscopies to look for recurrence.”

William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said about the marker, “We use it some, but a cutoff of 50 is very specific. You can think of that as equivalent to a Mayo endoscopy score of 0 in ulcerative colitis and probably histologic remission.”

Cutoffs above 50 mcg/mg are “not very clear,” he said.

He said given the lack of consensus on the panel, “others might take some pause about that discomfort.”

Dr. Sandborn pointed out that little is known about elevated calprotectin in ulcerative proctitis and whether it is elevated in Crohn’s ileitis.

Dr. Kane said other factors will affect fecal calprotectin levels.

“We have some data to say that if you are on a proton pump inhibitor that that changes fecal calprotectin levels. Patients who have inflamed pseudopolyps may have quiescent disease around the pseudopolyps that may elevate the fecal calprotectin.”

But it can have particular benefit in some patient populations, she said.

She pointed to a study that concluded calprotectin levels can be used in pregnant ulcerative colitis patients to gauge disease activity noninvasively.

Dr. Sands, Dr. Sandborn, Dr. Kane, and Dr. Hanauer have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.

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

Questions on fecal calprotectin’s usefulness as a measure of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) dominated the viewer chat after the opening session of Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2020 Annual Meeting.

The measure is often used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from IBD.

Panelists differed on how predictive fecal calprotectin is for disease status and what information the stool concentration of calprotectin imparts. Several experts discussed calprotectin cutoffs for when disease would be considered in remission or when a colonoscopy is needed for evaluation.

Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said about the noninvasive test: “It can be very tricky to use.”
 

Variation by time of day, by person

He explained that there can be individual differences, and that the concentration may be different in the first stool of the day compared with the last.

“There’s a lot of variation, which makes the cutoffs good on average for populations but a little bit more difficult to apply to individuals,” he said.

Dr. Sands said the marker has more merit for people with large-bowel inflammation but is not quite as accurate a marker for patients with exclusively small-bowel inflammation.

Moderator Steven Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, asked Dr. Sands what his next move would be if a patient had a concentration of 160 mcg/mg.

Sands called concentrations between 150 and 250 mcg/mg “a gray zone.”

“That usually indicates for me a need to evaluate with a colonoscopy,” he said.

“If we’re talking about using fecal calprotectin to rule out IBS, the cutoff there is more like 50, 55. But that isn’t how we’re generally using it as IBD practitioners.”

Sunanda V. Kane, MD, MSPH, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that 160 mcg/mg in a patient with IBD “means to me likely some minimal disease but not enough for me to make drastic changes to a medical regimen.”

She said about the measure, “We need to understand its limitations as well as strengths. Right now, insurance companies consider it ‘experimental’ and a lot of companies will not cover it. Ironically, they will cover the cost of a colonoscopy but not a stool test.”
 

Use as a benchmark

Dr. Sands said if he’s doing a colonoscopy to establish that the patient is in remission and knows what the fecal calprotectin level is at the time, he uses it as a benchmark for the future to judge whether the patient is deviating from remission.

He added that the negative predictive value of fecal calprotectin with a cutoff of 100 mcg/mg is “actually pretty good so you can avoid a number of unnecessary colonoscopies to look for recurrence.”

William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said about the marker, “We use it some, but a cutoff of 50 is very specific. You can think of that as equivalent to a Mayo endoscopy score of 0 in ulcerative colitis and probably histologic remission.”

Cutoffs above 50 mcg/mg are “not very clear,” he said.

He said given the lack of consensus on the panel, “others might take some pause about that discomfort.”

Dr. Sandborn pointed out that little is known about elevated calprotectin in ulcerative proctitis and whether it is elevated in Crohn’s ileitis.

Dr. Kane said other factors will affect fecal calprotectin levels.

“We have some data to say that if you are on a proton pump inhibitor that that changes fecal calprotectin levels. Patients who have inflamed pseudopolyps may have quiescent disease around the pseudopolyps that may elevate the fecal calprotectin.”

But it can have particular benefit in some patient populations, she said.

She pointed to a study that concluded calprotectin levels can be used in pregnant ulcerative colitis patients to gauge disease activity noninvasively.

Dr. Sands, Dr. Sandborn, Dr. Kane, and Dr. Hanauer have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.

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

Questions on fecal calprotectin’s usefulness as a measure of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) dominated the viewer chat after the opening session of Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2020 Annual Meeting.

The measure is often used to differentiate irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from IBD.

Panelists differed on how predictive fecal calprotectin is for disease status and what information the stool concentration of calprotectin imparts. Several experts discussed calprotectin cutoffs for when disease would be considered in remission or when a colonoscopy is needed for evaluation.

Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said about the noninvasive test: “It can be very tricky to use.”
 

Variation by time of day, by person

He explained that there can be individual differences, and that the concentration may be different in the first stool of the day compared with the last.

“There’s a lot of variation, which makes the cutoffs good on average for populations but a little bit more difficult to apply to individuals,” he said.

Dr. Sands said the marker has more merit for people with large-bowel inflammation but is not quite as accurate a marker for patients with exclusively small-bowel inflammation.

Moderator Steven Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, asked Dr. Sands what his next move would be if a patient had a concentration of 160 mcg/mg.

Sands called concentrations between 150 and 250 mcg/mg “a gray zone.”

“That usually indicates for me a need to evaluate with a colonoscopy,” he said.

“If we’re talking about using fecal calprotectin to rule out IBS, the cutoff there is more like 50, 55. But that isn’t how we’re generally using it as IBD practitioners.”

Sunanda V. Kane, MD, MSPH, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that 160 mcg/mg in a patient with IBD “means to me likely some minimal disease but not enough for me to make drastic changes to a medical regimen.”

She said about the measure, “We need to understand its limitations as well as strengths. Right now, insurance companies consider it ‘experimental’ and a lot of companies will not cover it. Ironically, they will cover the cost of a colonoscopy but not a stool test.”
 

Use as a benchmark

Dr. Sands said if he’s doing a colonoscopy to establish that the patient is in remission and knows what the fecal calprotectin level is at the time, he uses it as a benchmark for the future to judge whether the patient is deviating from remission.

He added that the negative predictive value of fecal calprotectin with a cutoff of 100 mcg/mg is “actually pretty good so you can avoid a number of unnecessary colonoscopies to look for recurrence.”

William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said about the marker, “We use it some, but a cutoff of 50 is very specific. You can think of that as equivalent to a Mayo endoscopy score of 0 in ulcerative colitis and probably histologic remission.”

Cutoffs above 50 mcg/mg are “not very clear,” he said.

He said given the lack of consensus on the panel, “others might take some pause about that discomfort.”

Dr. Sandborn pointed out that little is known about elevated calprotectin in ulcerative proctitis and whether it is elevated in Crohn’s ileitis.

Dr. Kane said other factors will affect fecal calprotectin levels.

“We have some data to say that if you are on a proton pump inhibitor that that changes fecal calprotectin levels. Patients who have inflamed pseudopolyps may have quiescent disease around the pseudopolyps that may elevate the fecal calprotectin.”

But it can have particular benefit in some patient populations, she said.

She pointed to a study that concluded calprotectin levels can be used in pregnant ulcerative colitis patients to gauge disease activity noninvasively.

Dr. Sands, Dr. Sandborn, Dr. Kane, and Dr. Hanauer have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.

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

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

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

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

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

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

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

Among people hospitalized with COVID-19, a combination of baricitinib and remdesivir reduces the median time to recovery, compared with remdesivir plus placebo, according to trial results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Median time to recovery was 7 days for patients who received baricitinib versus 8 days for patients who received placebo.

The difference was greater in patients who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation during their hospitalization. In this group, baricitinib shortened median time to recovery from 18 days to 10 days.

“Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status, notably among patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation,” reported Andre C. Kalil, MD, MPH, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues. In addition, the combination was associated with fewer adverse events.

The study details data from the ACTT-2 trial that the Food and Drug Administration used to issue an emergency-use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir on Nov. 19.

Under the emergency-use authorization, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, may be used in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead), an antiviral, for treating hospitalized adults and children aged at least 2 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination is intended for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
 

Combo treatment favored

It is unclear how baricitinib compares with dexamethasone, which improved survival and led to a 1-day shorter hospital stay in another trial. There are differences between the drugs and trial designs, and only a “head-to-head comparison ... will allow the efficacy and safety differences between these two approaches to be fully understood,” Dr. Kalil and coauthors wrote.

“Dexamethasone has a long half-life, acts on glucocorticoid receptors, and reduces inflammation through a broad-pathway approach that has been associated with immunosuppression, hospital-acquired infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, and neuromuscular weakness, even with short courses,” they wrote. “Baricitinib has a short half-life, acts on targeted critical pathways to reduce inflammation while minimizing biologic redundancy with less immunosuppression, and may have antiviral activity.”

The ACTT-2 trial started in May and enrolled 1,033 patients in eight countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral baricitinib tablets plus intravenous remdesivir or oral placebo tablets plus remdesivir. 

Participants who received both drugs had significantly improved clinical status at day 15. Patients who received both treatments also had fewer serious adverse events.

“Although ACTT-2 was not powered to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups, both the survival rate and the time-to-death analyses favored combination treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Some of the authors disclosed funding from government grants and financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gilead, and other companies.

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

Among people hospitalized with COVID-19, a combination of baricitinib and remdesivir reduces the median time to recovery, compared with remdesivir plus placebo, according to trial results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Median time to recovery was 7 days for patients who received baricitinib versus 8 days for patients who received placebo.

The difference was greater in patients who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation during their hospitalization. In this group, baricitinib shortened median time to recovery from 18 days to 10 days.

“Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status, notably among patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation,” reported Andre C. Kalil, MD, MPH, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues. In addition, the combination was associated with fewer adverse events.

The study details data from the ACTT-2 trial that the Food and Drug Administration used to issue an emergency-use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir on Nov. 19.

Under the emergency-use authorization, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, may be used in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead), an antiviral, for treating hospitalized adults and children aged at least 2 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination is intended for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
 

Combo treatment favored

It is unclear how baricitinib compares with dexamethasone, which improved survival and led to a 1-day shorter hospital stay in another trial. There are differences between the drugs and trial designs, and only a “head-to-head comparison ... will allow the efficacy and safety differences between these two approaches to be fully understood,” Dr. Kalil and coauthors wrote.

“Dexamethasone has a long half-life, acts on glucocorticoid receptors, and reduces inflammation through a broad-pathway approach that has been associated with immunosuppression, hospital-acquired infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, and neuromuscular weakness, even with short courses,” they wrote. “Baricitinib has a short half-life, acts on targeted critical pathways to reduce inflammation while minimizing biologic redundancy with less immunosuppression, and may have antiviral activity.”

The ACTT-2 trial started in May and enrolled 1,033 patients in eight countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral baricitinib tablets plus intravenous remdesivir or oral placebo tablets plus remdesivir. 

Participants who received both drugs had significantly improved clinical status at day 15. Patients who received both treatments also had fewer serious adverse events.

“Although ACTT-2 was not powered to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups, both the survival rate and the time-to-death analyses favored combination treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Some of the authors disclosed funding from government grants and financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gilead, and other companies.

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

Among people hospitalized with COVID-19, a combination of baricitinib and remdesivir reduces the median time to recovery, compared with remdesivir plus placebo, according to trial results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Median time to recovery was 7 days for patients who received baricitinib versus 8 days for patients who received placebo.

The difference was greater in patients who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation during their hospitalization. In this group, baricitinib shortened median time to recovery from 18 days to 10 days.

“Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status, notably among patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation,” reported Andre C. Kalil, MD, MPH, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues. In addition, the combination was associated with fewer adverse events.

The study details data from the ACTT-2 trial that the Food and Drug Administration used to issue an emergency-use authorization for baricitinib in combination with remdesivir on Nov. 19.

Under the emergency-use authorization, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, may be used in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead), an antiviral, for treating hospitalized adults and children aged at least 2 years with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination is intended for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
 

Combo treatment favored

It is unclear how baricitinib compares with dexamethasone, which improved survival and led to a 1-day shorter hospital stay in another trial. There are differences between the drugs and trial designs, and only a “head-to-head comparison ... will allow the efficacy and safety differences between these two approaches to be fully understood,” Dr. Kalil and coauthors wrote.

“Dexamethasone has a long half-life, acts on glucocorticoid receptors, and reduces inflammation through a broad-pathway approach that has been associated with immunosuppression, hospital-acquired infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, and neuromuscular weakness, even with short courses,” they wrote. “Baricitinib has a short half-life, acts on targeted critical pathways to reduce inflammation while minimizing biologic redundancy with less immunosuppression, and may have antiviral activity.”

The ACTT-2 trial started in May and enrolled 1,033 patients in eight countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral baricitinib tablets plus intravenous remdesivir or oral placebo tablets plus remdesivir. 

Participants who received both drugs had significantly improved clinical status at day 15. Patients who received both treatments also had fewer serious adverse events.

“Although ACTT-2 was not powered to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups, both the survival rate and the time-to-death analyses favored combination treatment,” the researchers wrote.

The trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Some of the authors disclosed funding from government grants and financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gilead, and other companies.

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

How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.

“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
 

Reference

1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.

How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.

“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
 

Reference

1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.

How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.

“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
 

Reference

1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.

Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.

The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.

SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”

Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.

The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.

These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.

Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”

Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.

She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”

If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.

The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.

SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
 

Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’

In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).

Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo. 

Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.

The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.

Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.

Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”

And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.

“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.

Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.

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

Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.

The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.

SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”

Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.

The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.

These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.

Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”

Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.

She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”

If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.

The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.

SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
 

Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’

In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).

Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo. 

Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.

The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.

Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.

Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”

And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.

“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.

Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.

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

Tirzepatide, a novel subcutaneously injected drug that acts via two related but separate pathways of glucose control, produced strikingly positive effects in top-line results from the phase 3, placebo-controlled study SURPASS-1 in 478 adults with type 2 diabetes, according to a Dec. 9 press release from the manufacturer, Lilly.

The tirzepatide molecule exerts agonist effects at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, and has been called a “twincretin” for its activity encompassing two different incretins. Phase 2 trial results caused excitement, with one physician calling the data “unbelievable” when reported in 2018.

SURPASS-1 enrolled patients who were very early in the course of their disease, had on average relatively mild elevation in glucose levels, and few metabolic comorbidities. They took one of three doses of the agent (5, 10, or 15 mg) as monotherapy or placebo for 40 weeks.

Julio Rosenstock, MD, said in the Lilly statement: “The study took a bold approach in assessing A1c targets. Not only did nearly 90% of all participants taking tirzepatide meet the standard A1c goal of less than 7%, more than half taking the highest dose also achieved an A1c less than 5.7%, the level seen in people without diabetes.”

Dr. Rosenstock is principal investigator of SURPASS-1 and director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center in Texas.

The discontinuation rate in the high-dose group was 21.5% compared with less than 10% in the two lower-dose cohorts. Lilly said most of the dropouts “were due to the pandemic and family or work reasons.” The dropout rate in the placebo group was 14.8%.

These data were not included in the efficacy analysis, however, which “muddied” the analysis somewhat, one pharma analyst told BioPharma Dive.

Commenting on the new trial data, Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said in an interview: “I am very impressed with these results,” which are “unprecedented for any glucose-lowering medication that has ever been tested.”

Dr. Lingvay, of the department of internal medicine/endocrinology, and medical director, office of clinical trials management at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, was not involved in the study.

She added that the weight loss seen with tirzepatide “is equally impressive with greater than 10% of body weight loss above placebo achieved within 40 weeks of treatment and without any directed weight loss efforts.”

If the agent is eventually approved, “I am enthusiastic about the prospect of having another very powerful tool to address both diabetes and obesity,” she added.

The full results of SURPASS-1 will be presented at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2021.

SURPASS-1 is one of eight phase 3 studies of the drug, including five registration studies and one large 12,500-patient cardiovascular outcomes trial.
 

Tirzepatide patients lost up to 20 lb, side effect profile ‘reassuring’

In the study, patients had been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (average duration, 4.8 years) and 54% were treatment-naive. Average baseline hemoglobin A1c was 7.9% and mean weight was 85.9 kg (189 pounds).

Patients started on a subcutaneous injectable dose of tirzepatide of 2.5 mg per week, which was titrated up to the final dose – 5, 10, or 15 mg – in 2.5-mg increments given as monotherapy for 40 weeks and compared with placebo. 

Treatment with tirzepatide resulted in average reductions in A1c from baseline that ranged from 1.87% to 2.07%, depending on the dose, and were all significant compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo.

The percentage of patients whose A1c fell to normal levels (less than 5.7%) ranged from 30.5% to 51.7%, compared with 0.9% among controls, and again, was significant for all doses.

Patients treated with tirzepatide also lost weight. Average weight reductions after 40 weeks were significant and ranged from 7.0 to 9.5 kg (15-21 pounds) compared with an average loss of 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) among patients who received placebo.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and mild to moderate in severity, and usually occurred during dose escalation.

Dr. Lingvay said the safety data reported are “reassuring, with side effects in the anticipated range and comparable with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class.”

And no hypoglycemic (level 2, < 54 mg/dL) events were reported, “which is impressive considering the overall glucose level achieved,” she noted.

“I am eagerly awaiting the results of the other studies within the SURPASS program and hope those will confirm these initial findings and provide additional safety and efficacy information in a wider range of patients with type 2 diabetes,” she concluded.

Dr. Lingvay has reported receiving research funding, advisory/consulting fees, and/or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, MannKind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma.

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

This supplement to Clinician Reviews brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to Clinician Reviews brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to Clinician Reviews brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

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