In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?

Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.

More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.

There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.

Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.

Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:

• Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
• Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
• Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
• Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).

The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.

These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.

In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?

Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.

More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.

There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.

Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.

Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:

• Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
• Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
• Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
• Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).

The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.

These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.

In the early weeks and months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many people were trying to avoid the coronavirus by staying away from emergency rooms and medical offices. But how many people is “many”?

Turns out almost 41% of Americans delayed or avoided some form of medical care because of concerns about COVID-19, according to the results of a survey conducted June 24-30 by commercial survey company Qualtrics.

More specifically, the avoidance looks like this: 31.5% of the 4,975 adult respondents had avoided routine care and 12.0% had avoided urgent or emergency care, Mark E. Czeisler and associates said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The two categories were not mutually exclusive since respondents could select both routine care and urgent/emergency care.

There were, however, a number of significant disparities hidden among those numbers for the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, with respective prevalences of 23.3% and 24.6%, were significantly more likely to delay or avoid urgent/emergency care than were Whites (6.7%), said Mr. Czeisler, a graduate student at Monash University, Melbourne, and associates.

Those differences “are especially concerning given increased COVID-19–associated mortality among Black adults and Hispanic adults,” they noted, adding that “age-adjusted COVID-19 hospitalization rates are approximately five times higher among Black persons and four times higher among Hispanic persons than” among Whites.

Other significant disparities in urgent/emergency care avoidance included the following:

• Unpaid caregivers for adults (29.8%) vs. noncaregivers (5.4%).
• Adults with two or more underlying conditions (22.7%) vs. those without such conditions (8.2%).
• Those with a disability (22.8%) vs. those without (8.9%).
• Those with health insurance (12.4%) vs. those without (7.8%).

The highest prevalence for all types of COVID-19–related delay and avoidance came from the adult caregivers (64.3%), followed by those with a disability (60.3%) and adults aged 18-24 years (57.2%). The lowest prevalence numbers were for adults with health insurance (24.8%) and those who were not caregivers for adults (32.2%), Mr. Czeisler and associates reported.

These reports of delayed and avoided care “might reflect adherence to community mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders, temporary closures of health facilities, or additional factors. However, if routine care avoidance were to be sustained, adults could miss opportunities for management of chronic conditions, receipt of routine vaccinations, or early detection of new conditions, which might worsen outcomes,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Czeisler ME et al. MMWR. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1250-7.

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

The nation’s largest physician association is seeking to establish a path to payment for extra practice expenses required to care for patients during the COVID pandemic and possible future public health emergencies.

The American Medical Association on Sept. 8 announced that a new code, 99072, is intended to cover additional supplies, materials, and clinical staff time over and above those usually included in an office visit when performed during a declared public health emergency, as defined by law, attributable to respiratory-transmitted infectious disease, the AMA said in a release.

Fifty national medical specialty societies and other organizations worked with the AMA’s Specialty Society RVS Update Committee over the summer to collect data on the costs of maintaining safe medical offices during the public health emergency. It has submitted recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services seeking to persuade the federal agencies to recognize the new 99072 payment code.

The intention is to recognize the extra expenses involved in steps now routinely taken to reduce the risk for COVID transmission from office visits, Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel Chair Mark S. Synovec, MD, said in an interview. Some practices have adapted by having staff screen patients before they enter offices and making arrangements to keep patients at a safe distance from others during their visits, he said.

“Everyone’s life has significantly changed because of COVID and the health care system has dramatically changed,” Dr. Synovec said. “It was pretty clear that the status quo was not going to work.”

Physician practices will welcome this change, said Veronica Bradley, CPC, a senior industry adviser to the Medical Group Management Association. An office visit that in the past may have involved only basic infection control measures, such as donning a pair of gloves, now may involve clinicians taking the time to put on more extensive protective gear, she said.

“Now they are taking a heck of a lot more precautions, and there’s more time and more supplies being consumed,” Ms. Bradley said in an interview.
 

Code looks ahead to future use

The AMA explained how this new code differs from CPT code 99070, which is typically reported for supplies and materials that may be used or provided to patients during an office visit.

The new 99072 code applies only during declared public health emergencies and applies only to additional items required to support “a safe in-person provision” of evaluation, treatment, and procedures, the AMA said.

“These items contrast with those typically reported with code 99070, which focuses on additional supplies provided over and above those usually included with a specific service, such as drugs, intravenous catheters, or trays,” the AMA said.

The CPT panel sought to structure the new code for covering COVID practice expenses so that it could not be abused, and also looked ahead to the future, Dr. Synovec said.

“It’s a code that you would put on during a public health emergency as defined by law that would be related to a respiratory-transmitted infectious disease. Obviously we meant it for SARS-CoV-2,” he said. “Hopefully we can go another 100 years before we have another pandemic, but we also wanted to prepare something where if we have another airborne respiratory virus that requires additional practice expenses as seen this time, it would be available for use.”

The AMA also announced a second addition, CPT code 86413, that anticipates greater use of quantitative measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, as opposed to a qualitative assessment (positive/negative) provided by laboratory tests reported by other CPT codes.

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

Serious side effects make up the majority of adverse effects of rituximab and ocrelizumab in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a new postmarketing analysis finds, and AE-related deaths were not unusual. Serious AEs, and those linked to death, were more common in the rituximab group, although the reported infection rate was higher in the ocrelizumab group.

The analysis, published Aug. 21 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal, highlights the importance of monitoring patients for infections and encouraging them to do the same, the authors said.

“This report points out the impact of treatments in terms of unrecognized or underappreciated complications,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who reviewed the study findings. “These medications have a significant downside.”

Lead author Natalia Gonzalez Caldito, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues analyzed AEs for the drugs in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System. They only included cases in which the drugs were solely used to treat MS and were indicated as the cause of the AEs.

Rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) are both monoclonal antibodies. Rituximab is not FDA approved for MS but is used off label; ocrelizumab is approved for the relapsing forms of MS and primary progressive MS.

The researchers found 623 AE reports and 1,466 total AEs for rituximab and 7,948 and 23,613, respectively, for ocrelizumab. The average ages for the groups were 48.76 versus 43.89, respectively, (P < .001), and 71% in each group were women.

Among total AEs, serious AEs were more common in the rituximab group versus the ocrelizumab group (64.8% vs. 56.3%, respectively, P < .001). Adverse events that caused death were also more common in the rituximab group versus the ocrelizumab group (5.75% vs. 2.11%, P < .001).

Infections and infestations were more common in the ocrelizumab group than the rituximab group (21.93% vs. 11.05%, respectively, P < .001). However, certain AEs were more common in the rituximab group than the ocrelizumab group: Those in the blood and lymphatic system category (2.86% vs. 0.91%, respectively, P < .001), and those in the neoplasms category (4.02% vs. 1.28%, P < .001, respectively).

Researchers found a highly strong association between rituximab and a rare side effects – ear pruritus (itching, 0.8%). They also identified signals for infusion-related reaction (4.82%), throat irritation (4.01%) and throat tightness (1.44%), malignant melanoma (0.8%), breast cancer (1.77%) and neutropenia (2.57%).

Among the ocrelizumab AEs, researchers found the strongest association with oral herpes (2.21%), and they found other signals for herpes zoster (2.89%), urinary tract infection (10.52%), nasopharyngitis (9.79%), infusion-related reaction (4.76%), throat irritation (3.08%), and notably MS relapses (4.1%).

“Additional pharmacovigilance studies are needed to explore and further characterize these findings,” the researchers wrote. “Furthermore, these observations suggest that the AE profile of other second-generation anti-CD20 [monoclonal antibodies] may also differ from those of rituximab and ocrelizumab.”

Dr. Gudesblatt praised the analysis and said the findings make sense. “Use of B-cell–depleting agents lead to accumulative immune deficiency in routine care, which leads to higher rates of infection,” he said. He added that, “in the clinical trials for ocrelizumab, patients with IgG and IgM deficiency were excluded, but there is no advisement to exclude such patients in real care. The rates of infection in those patients with MS who have preexisting immune deficiencies and who are treated with these agents are unknown.”

The prospect of AEs is especially worrisome, he said, since “this information is only short term. Who knows what effect the prolonged use of unopposed B-cell depletion will have on infections in the long run?”

Neurologist Mitchell Wallin, MD, MPH, of George Washington University, Washington, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said in an interview that the analysis is rigorous and especially useful because it includes a wider array of subjects – including those who are older and sicker – than took part in earlier clinical trials. “It’s really important to look at this real-world evidence,” he said, “and basically put this in the back of your head when you follow up with your patients.”

No study funding was reported. The corresponding author reported various disclosures. Dr. Gudesblatt and Dr. Wallin reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Gonzalez Caldito N et al. Mult Scler J. 2020 Aug 21. doi: 10.1177/1352458520949986.

Serious side effects make up the majority of adverse effects of rituximab and ocrelizumab in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a new postmarketing analysis finds, and AE-related deaths were not unusual. Serious AEs, and those linked to death, were more common in the rituximab group, although the reported infection rate was higher in the ocrelizumab group.

The analysis, published Aug. 21 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal, highlights the importance of monitoring patients for infections and encouraging them to do the same, the authors said.

“This report points out the impact of treatments in terms of unrecognized or underappreciated complications,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who reviewed the study findings. “These medications have a significant downside.”

Lead author Natalia Gonzalez Caldito, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues analyzed AEs for the drugs in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System. They only included cases in which the drugs were solely used to treat MS and were indicated as the cause of the AEs.

Rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) are both monoclonal antibodies. Rituximab is not FDA approved for MS but is used off label; ocrelizumab is approved for the relapsing forms of MS and primary progressive MS.

The researchers found 623 AE reports and 1,466 total AEs for rituximab and 7,948 and 23,613, respectively, for ocrelizumab. The average ages for the groups were 48.76 versus 43.89, respectively, (P < .001), and 71% in each group were women.

Among total AEs, serious AEs were more common in the rituximab group versus the ocrelizumab group (64.8% vs. 56.3%, respectively, P < .001). Adverse events that caused death were also more common in the rituximab group versus the ocrelizumab group (5.75% vs. 2.11%, P < .001).

Infections and infestations were more common in the ocrelizumab group than the rituximab group (21.93% vs. 11.05%, respectively, P < .001). However, certain AEs were more common in the rituximab group than the ocrelizumab group: Those in the blood and lymphatic system category (2.86% vs. 0.91%, respectively, P < .001), and those in the neoplasms category (4.02% vs. 1.28%, P < .001, respectively).

Researchers found a highly strong association between rituximab and a rare side effects – ear pruritus (itching, 0.8%). They also identified signals for infusion-related reaction (4.82%), throat irritation (4.01%) and throat tightness (1.44%), malignant melanoma (0.8%), breast cancer (1.77%) and neutropenia (2.57%).

Among the ocrelizumab AEs, researchers found the strongest association with oral herpes (2.21%), and they found other signals for herpes zoster (2.89%), urinary tract infection (10.52%), nasopharyngitis (9.79%), infusion-related reaction (4.76%), throat irritation (3.08%), and notably MS relapses (4.1%).

“Additional pharmacovigilance studies are needed to explore and further characterize these findings,” the researchers wrote. “Furthermore, these observations suggest that the AE profile of other second-generation anti-CD20 [monoclonal antibodies] may also differ from those of rituximab and ocrelizumab.”

Dr. Gudesblatt praised the analysis and said the findings make sense. “Use of B-cell–depleting agents lead to accumulative immune deficiency in routine care, which leads to higher rates of infection,” he said. He added that, “in the clinical trials for ocrelizumab, patients with IgG and IgM deficiency were excluded, but there is no advisement to exclude such patients in real care. The rates of infection in those patients with MS who have preexisting immune deficiencies and who are treated with these agents are unknown.”

The prospect of AEs is especially worrisome, he said, since “this information is only short term. Who knows what effect the prolonged use of unopposed B-cell depletion will have on infections in the long run?”

Neurologist Mitchell Wallin, MD, MPH, of George Washington University, Washington, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said in an interview that the analysis is rigorous and especially useful because it includes a wider array of subjects – including those who are older and sicker – than took part in earlier clinical trials. “It’s really important to look at this real-world evidence,” he said, “and basically put this in the back of your head when you follow up with your patients.”

No study funding was reported. The corresponding author reported various disclosures. Dr. Gudesblatt and Dr. Wallin reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Gonzalez Caldito N et al. Mult Scler J. 2020 Aug 21. doi: 10.1177/1352458520949986.

Serious side effects make up the majority of adverse effects of rituximab and ocrelizumab in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a new postmarketing analysis finds, and AE-related deaths were not unusual. Serious AEs, and those linked to death, were more common in the rituximab group, although the reported infection rate was higher in the ocrelizumab group.

The analysis, published Aug. 21 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal, highlights the importance of monitoring patients for infections and encouraging them to do the same, the authors said.

“This report points out the impact of treatments in terms of unrecognized or underappreciated complications,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who reviewed the study findings. “These medications have a significant downside.”

Lead author Natalia Gonzalez Caldito, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues analyzed AEs for the drugs in the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System. They only included cases in which the drugs were solely used to treat MS and were indicated as the cause of the AEs.

Rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) are both monoclonal antibodies. Rituximab is not FDA approved for MS but is used off label; ocrelizumab is approved for the relapsing forms of MS and primary progressive MS.

The researchers found 623 AE reports and 1,466 total AEs for rituximab and 7,948 and 23,613, respectively, for ocrelizumab. The average ages for the groups were 48.76 versus 43.89, respectively, (P < .001), and 71% in each group were women.

Among total AEs, serious AEs were more common in the rituximab group versus the ocrelizumab group (64.8% vs. 56.3%, respectively, P < .001). Adverse events that caused death were also more common in the rituximab group versus the ocrelizumab group (5.75% vs. 2.11%, P < .001).

Infections and infestations were more common in the ocrelizumab group than the rituximab group (21.93% vs. 11.05%, respectively, P < .001). However, certain AEs were more common in the rituximab group than the ocrelizumab group: Those in the blood and lymphatic system category (2.86% vs. 0.91%, respectively, P < .001), and those in the neoplasms category (4.02% vs. 1.28%, P < .001, respectively).

Researchers found a highly strong association between rituximab and a rare side effects – ear pruritus (itching, 0.8%). They also identified signals for infusion-related reaction (4.82%), throat irritation (4.01%) and throat tightness (1.44%), malignant melanoma (0.8%), breast cancer (1.77%) and neutropenia (2.57%).

Among the ocrelizumab AEs, researchers found the strongest association with oral herpes (2.21%), and they found other signals for herpes zoster (2.89%), urinary tract infection (10.52%), nasopharyngitis (9.79%), infusion-related reaction (4.76%), throat irritation (3.08%), and notably MS relapses (4.1%).

“Additional pharmacovigilance studies are needed to explore and further characterize these findings,” the researchers wrote. “Furthermore, these observations suggest that the AE profile of other second-generation anti-CD20 [monoclonal antibodies] may also differ from those of rituximab and ocrelizumab.”

Dr. Gudesblatt praised the analysis and said the findings make sense. “Use of B-cell–depleting agents lead to accumulative immune deficiency in routine care, which leads to higher rates of infection,” he said. He added that, “in the clinical trials for ocrelizumab, patients with IgG and IgM deficiency were excluded, but there is no advisement to exclude such patients in real care. The rates of infection in those patients with MS who have preexisting immune deficiencies and who are treated with these agents are unknown.”

The prospect of AEs is especially worrisome, he said, since “this information is only short term. Who knows what effect the prolonged use of unopposed B-cell depletion will have on infections in the long run?”

Neurologist Mitchell Wallin, MD, MPH, of George Washington University, Washington, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said in an interview that the analysis is rigorous and especially useful because it includes a wider array of subjects – including those who are older and sicker – than took part in earlier clinical trials. “It’s really important to look at this real-world evidence,” he said, “and basically put this in the back of your head when you follow up with your patients.”

No study funding was reported. The corresponding author reported various disclosures. Dr. Gudesblatt and Dr. Wallin reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Gonzalez Caldito N et al. Mult Scler J. 2020 Aug 21. doi: 10.1177/1352458520949986.

The American Board of Internal Medicine has named David Pizzimenti, DO, to its board of trustees. The appointment comes with a 3-year term.

Dr. Pizzimenti has been a practicing internist in Mississippi since 2005. He currently serves as associate medical officer of acute care at North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo, where he also directs the hospitalist program and the internal medicine residency program. Prior to joining NMMC, he managed the same role at Magnolia Regional Health Center (Corinth, Miss.).

Dr. Pizzimenti is an inducted member of the American College of Osteopathic Internist College of Fellows, as well as a certified wound care specialist.



Tommy Ibrahim, MD, FHM, recently was named the new president and CEO for Bassett Healthcare Network, replacing William Streck, who had served in the role from 1984 to 2014, and then on an interim basis since 2018.

Dr. Ibrahim comes to Bassett from Integris Health, the largest nonprofit health care system in Oklahoma, where he was executive vice president and chief physician executive. He started his career as a hospitalist before moving into administration, and is a fellow in hospital medicine as well as a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives.

Bassett Healthcare Network is based at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and includes four hospitals and more than two dozen primary care centers in eight New York counties.
 

Russell Kerbel, MD, MBA, has been named medical director for sepsis prevention at the University of California, Los Angeles. Since his arrival at UCLA in 2014, Dr. Kerbel – a hospitalist by training – has worked to increase awareness and standardize sepsis treatment through his advocacy, interdepartmental collaboration, and informatics knowledge.

Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, SFHM, was installed as vice president of the Florida Medical Association during the all-virtual 2020 FMA annual meeting in August. Dr. Lenchus is a hospitalist and chief medical officer at the Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Christopher Carpenter, MD, has been elevated to chief of staff at Natividad, a 172-bed, county-owned hospital in Salinas, Calif. Dr. Carpenter has served Natividad for the past 4 years, holding the positions of chief hospitalist, chief of service for pediatrics, vice chief of staff, and most recently director of pediatric services.

Dr. Carpenter’s term as chief of staff is limited to 2 years, during which he said his goals include promoting diversity within the facility’s leadership.

Prior to arriving at Natividad, Dr. Carpenter was instructor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, as well as associate director of the Boston Children’s Hospital Pediatric Global Health Fellowship.


David Fagan, MD, recently was promoted to medical director at Mid-State Health Center (Plymouth, N.H.), where he has served for the past 10 years. The 30-year medical veteran began working in his new role in May 2020.

Previously, Dr. Fagan has served the facility as an internist and hospitalist, and he has been among the leaders at Mid-State in ensuring safety for patients and staff during the COVID-19 response.


The Carroll County Memorial Hospital (Carrolton, Mo.) recently announced its new hospitalist program, which officially began on June 1, 2020. CCMH officials said the focus of the hospitalists will be to maintain communication with primary care physicians once patients leave the hospital facility.

CCMH added three physicians to its staff to work in the hospitalist program: Reuben I. Thaker, MD; Samuel C. Evans, MD; and Charles C. Glendenning, DO.


NorthShore University HealthSystem (Evanston, Ill.) has agreed to purchase Northwest Community Healthcare, a single-hospital health system located in Arlington Heights, Ill. NCH will become a hospital hub for NorthShore in the northwest Chicago suburbs.

When the agreement is finalized, NorthShore’s stable of hospitals will rise to six in and around Chicago. The system also provides outpatient care, labwork, and pharmacy services.

The American Board of Internal Medicine has named David Pizzimenti, DO, to its board of trustees. The appointment comes with a 3-year term.

Dr. Pizzimenti has been a practicing internist in Mississippi since 2005. He currently serves as associate medical officer of acute care at North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo, where he also directs the hospitalist program and the internal medicine residency program. Prior to joining NMMC, he managed the same role at Magnolia Regional Health Center (Corinth, Miss.).

Dr. Pizzimenti is an inducted member of the American College of Osteopathic Internist College of Fellows, as well as a certified wound care specialist.



Tommy Ibrahim, MD, FHM, recently was named the new president and CEO for Bassett Healthcare Network, replacing William Streck, who had served in the role from 1984 to 2014, and then on an interim basis since 2018.

Dr. Ibrahim comes to Bassett from Integris Health, the largest nonprofit health care system in Oklahoma, where he was executive vice president and chief physician executive. He started his career as a hospitalist before moving into administration, and is a fellow in hospital medicine as well as a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives.

Bassett Healthcare Network is based at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and includes four hospitals and more than two dozen primary care centers in eight New York counties.
 

Russell Kerbel, MD, MBA, has been named medical director for sepsis prevention at the University of California, Los Angeles. Since his arrival at UCLA in 2014, Dr. Kerbel – a hospitalist by training – has worked to increase awareness and standardize sepsis treatment through his advocacy, interdepartmental collaboration, and informatics knowledge.

Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, SFHM, was installed as vice president of the Florida Medical Association during the all-virtual 2020 FMA annual meeting in August. Dr. Lenchus is a hospitalist and chief medical officer at the Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Christopher Carpenter, MD, has been elevated to chief of staff at Natividad, a 172-bed, county-owned hospital in Salinas, Calif. Dr. Carpenter has served Natividad for the past 4 years, holding the positions of chief hospitalist, chief of service for pediatrics, vice chief of staff, and most recently director of pediatric services.

Dr. Carpenter’s term as chief of staff is limited to 2 years, during which he said his goals include promoting diversity within the facility’s leadership.

Prior to arriving at Natividad, Dr. Carpenter was instructor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, as well as associate director of the Boston Children’s Hospital Pediatric Global Health Fellowship.


David Fagan, MD, recently was promoted to medical director at Mid-State Health Center (Plymouth, N.H.), where he has served for the past 10 years. The 30-year medical veteran began working in his new role in May 2020.

Previously, Dr. Fagan has served the facility as an internist and hospitalist, and he has been among the leaders at Mid-State in ensuring safety for patients and staff during the COVID-19 response.


The Carroll County Memorial Hospital (Carrolton, Mo.) recently announced its new hospitalist program, which officially began on June 1, 2020. CCMH officials said the focus of the hospitalists will be to maintain communication with primary care physicians once patients leave the hospital facility.

CCMH added three physicians to its staff to work in the hospitalist program: Reuben I. Thaker, MD; Samuel C. Evans, MD; and Charles C. Glendenning, DO.


NorthShore University HealthSystem (Evanston, Ill.) has agreed to purchase Northwest Community Healthcare, a single-hospital health system located in Arlington Heights, Ill. NCH will become a hospital hub for NorthShore in the northwest Chicago suburbs.

When the agreement is finalized, NorthShore’s stable of hospitals will rise to six in and around Chicago. The system also provides outpatient care, labwork, and pharmacy services.

The American Board of Internal Medicine has named David Pizzimenti, DO, to its board of trustees. The appointment comes with a 3-year term.

Dr. Pizzimenti has been a practicing internist in Mississippi since 2005. He currently serves as associate medical officer of acute care at North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo, where he also directs the hospitalist program and the internal medicine residency program. Prior to joining NMMC, he managed the same role at Magnolia Regional Health Center (Corinth, Miss.).

Dr. Pizzimenti is an inducted member of the American College of Osteopathic Internist College of Fellows, as well as a certified wound care specialist.



Tommy Ibrahim, MD, FHM, recently was named the new president and CEO for Bassett Healthcare Network, replacing William Streck, who had served in the role from 1984 to 2014, and then on an interim basis since 2018.

Dr. Ibrahim comes to Bassett from Integris Health, the largest nonprofit health care system in Oklahoma, where he was executive vice president and chief physician executive. He started his career as a hospitalist before moving into administration, and is a fellow in hospital medicine as well as a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives.

Bassett Healthcare Network is based at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and includes four hospitals and more than two dozen primary care centers in eight New York counties.
 

Russell Kerbel, MD, MBA, has been named medical director for sepsis prevention at the University of California, Los Angeles. Since his arrival at UCLA in 2014, Dr. Kerbel – a hospitalist by training – has worked to increase awareness and standardize sepsis treatment through his advocacy, interdepartmental collaboration, and informatics knowledge.

Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, SFHM, was installed as vice president of the Florida Medical Association during the all-virtual 2020 FMA annual meeting in August. Dr. Lenchus is a hospitalist and chief medical officer at the Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Christopher Carpenter, MD, has been elevated to chief of staff at Natividad, a 172-bed, county-owned hospital in Salinas, Calif. Dr. Carpenter has served Natividad for the past 4 years, holding the positions of chief hospitalist, chief of service for pediatrics, vice chief of staff, and most recently director of pediatric services.

Dr. Carpenter’s term as chief of staff is limited to 2 years, during which he said his goals include promoting diversity within the facility’s leadership.

Prior to arriving at Natividad, Dr. Carpenter was instructor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, as well as associate director of the Boston Children’s Hospital Pediatric Global Health Fellowship.


David Fagan, MD, recently was promoted to medical director at Mid-State Health Center (Plymouth, N.H.), where he has served for the past 10 years. The 30-year medical veteran began working in his new role in May 2020.

Previously, Dr. Fagan has served the facility as an internist and hospitalist, and he has been among the leaders at Mid-State in ensuring safety for patients and staff during the COVID-19 response.


The Carroll County Memorial Hospital (Carrolton, Mo.) recently announced its new hospitalist program, which officially began on June 1, 2020. CCMH officials said the focus of the hospitalists will be to maintain communication with primary care physicians once patients leave the hospital facility.

CCMH added three physicians to its staff to work in the hospitalist program: Reuben I. Thaker, MD; Samuel C. Evans, MD; and Charles C. Glendenning, DO.


NorthShore University HealthSystem (Evanston, Ill.) has agreed to purchase Northwest Community Healthcare, a single-hospital health system located in Arlington Heights, Ill. NCH will become a hospital hub for NorthShore in the northwest Chicago suburbs.

When the agreement is finalized, NorthShore’s stable of hospitals will rise to six in and around Chicago. The system also provides outpatient care, labwork, and pharmacy services.

The virtual American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting “is full of highlights,” says Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, scientific chair, but “this year you won’t lose time in the hallways to switch between the talks,” he quipped.

Nevertheless, “although we won’t be coming together face to face this year, you will have the flexibility to virtually connect with peers and colleagues from around the world,” Teresita Bellido, PhD, ASBMR president emphasized in a message to members.

Like other medical organizations, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASBMR had to quickly pivot to provide a virtual meeting.

The meeting will take place September 11-15 and is free for ASBMR members.  

Speaking to Medscape Medical News, Bellido and Hofbauer drew attention to some of the meeting’s major themes, key sessions, and top clinical oral abstracts.

Attendees at this year’s virtual meeting will hear the latest information on optimal sequential treatment for osteoporosis, the latest research using artificial intelligence (AI), and bone and cancer, among other topics.
 

Sequential osteoporosis treatment a recurring theme

According to Hofbauer, from Dresden Technical University, Germany, the September 13 Cutting Edge symposium entitled, “Optimizing Sequential Osteoporosis Treatment,” is not to be missed, and the topic “will be a leitmotiv [recurrent theme] for the entire meeting.”

During this session speakers will present findings from two perspectives – basic science and clinical applications – with the latter being another recurring theme at the meeting.

Bellido, from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock, pointed out that romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is an example of how basic laboratory research can lead to important new therapies.

Anabolic therapies for osteoporosis that “build up bone” include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and now romosozumab, whereas antiresorptive therapies that stop bone resorption include the bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab, Bellido explained.

As osteoporosis treatment options have expanded, the timing and sequencing of optimal therapies have become much more complex, and so this session on sequencing, as well as the September 13 Concurrent Orals session, “Issues of Long-term Treatment and Discontinuation,” is sure to spark interest.

The ASBMR/European Calcified Tissue Society debate, entitled, “A Treat to Target Approach is Helpful for Osteoporosis Management,” is also expected to be lively and generate wide interest, according to Bellido and Hofbauer.

Michael R. McClung, MD, Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, will argue against the motion and Celia Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol, UK, will argue for it. Attendees will be able to vote for/against the motion before and after the debate, and the result will indicate which speaker was more persuasive.
 

Bone cancer ultimately damages other tissues

The meeting will also offer attendees a close look at bone and cancer, which is an example of how “all the homeostatic processes that occur with bone not only affect bone but also impact other tissues and organs,” said Bellido.

In other words, “what happens in bone impacts other tissues – for example, skeletal muscle, the pancreas, and even frailty and fractures.”

Theresa A. Guise, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Austin, will present the Louis V. Avioli Lecture on September 11, entitled, “Cancer, Bone and Beyond: An Integrated View of the Bone Microenvironment.”

“Local events in the bone microenvironment due to cancer and cancer treatment which result in pathologic bone destruction may have widespread systemic consequences that further increase morbidity and mortality,” Hofbauer noted.

Guise “will highlight cutting-edge concepts, potential mechanisms, and therapy for bone metastases,” he said.

These concepts will also be discussed in more detail during a 2-day virtual premeeting symposium, presented on September 9 and 10 by the ASBMR along with the Cancer and Bone Society, entitled, “The Seed and Soil: Therapeutic Targets for Cancer in Bone.”

The symposium will cover tumor dormancy, imaging, adiposity in the bone tumor microenvironment, a history of bone-targeted therapies in cancer, advances in breast cancer bone metastasis, and new approaches in myeloma bone disease.

“We have evidence from breast cancer, multiple myeloma, as well as from prostate cancer,” Bellido noted, that “all those cancer cells make their home in bone and transform the bone in such a way that not only the bone is damaged but also other tissues.”

“We have skeletal muscle weakness (that is directed by the effects that occur in bone), as well as changes in the pancreas – all directed by proteins and genes in bone cells.”
 

AI, bench to bedside research

“Every field is moving towards the use of AI,” Bellido noted, and the September 11 plenary symposium entitled, “Artificial Intelligence and Precision Medicine in Musculoskeletal Health,” will shed light on how AI is being used to study bone health.

The session “will give us a glimpse of the future,” said Hofbauer.

Session topics include principles of applications to research and clinical care in bone and mineral research; how AI can help detect rare diseases; and combining genomics with medical data using AI in precision medicine for drug discovery.

“The Bench to Bedside presentation on ‘Beta Blockers and Bone’ is a great example of translational research, while the Basic Symposium on ‘Bones, Guts and Brains’ provides inspiring and thought-provoking insights into novel physiology and tempting teleology,” Hofbauer explained.

“Another fascinating Cutting Edge symposium,” he added, “is on ‘Inspiring Mechanistic Bone Stories from Around the Animal Kingdom,’ a must-see for those employing preclinical animal models.”

For more insight into early research and a research pioneer, attendees can listen to Selma Masri, PhD, from the University of California, Irvine, who will deliver the Gerald D. Aurbach Lecture entitled, “The Scientific Legacy of Paolo Sassone-Corsi: A Tour Through the Fields of Transcriptional Regulation, Epigenetics, Metabolism and Circadian Rhythms.”

Masri’s lab is dissecting how genetic disruption of the circadian clock in mouse models affects cancer, and she will discuss the work and legacy of the late Sassone-Corsi, as well as the future of the field.
 

Rare disease, fragility fractures

The ASBMR meeting will also feature the latest research into rare diseases and fragility fractures.

Rare diseases are often about “more bone or less bone,” said Bellido. “Understanding the mechanisms of these rare diseases can give us very important clues of treating the more common diseases.”

A fragility fracture is a diagnosis of osteoporosis, but most are not treated, she continued. “This is equivalent to having, for example, a heart attack and leaving the hospital after the incident was resolved and not treating it.”

“We’re trying to address this gap,” she said, and a symposium on September 14 will present some of the latest knowledge.

During the “Long-term Management of Fragility Fracture” symposium, speakers will discuss reducing mortality with antiosteoporotic treatment, new scenarios to prevent postfracture frailty, as well as fracture and postfracture management – surgeon and nursing perspectives.
 

COVID-19, nutrition, microbiome, and top 5 clinical abstracts

In addition to plenary sessions and symposiums, there are many oral abstracts and posters on important studies in the field of bone health, including, for example, a topical study of vitamin D and COVID-19.

There are also many abstracts on nutrition, the microbiome, and treating bone loss, said Bellido.

“We have a huge increase in the number of abstracts submitted from South America and Australia compared to previous years,” she noted, “and a 10% increase (from 50% to 61%) in the number of abstracts submitted by young investigators, which is crucial.”

Close to 1000 abstracts (988) were submitted, two thirds of which were clinical.

The top 5 clinical abstracts reflect important current issues in the field, said Hofbauer.

“One major theme is on long-term and sequential therapy efficacy and safety,” he said. And “burosumab is a game-changing new drug, and nutritional aspects are evergreens [perennial favorites], especially in the elderly population.”

The top 5 clinical oral abstracts at the ASBMR 2020 meeting are:

• Dairy supplementation reduces fractures and falls in institutionalized older adults: A cluster-randomized placebo-controlled trial (abstract 1022).
• Treatment with zoledronate subsequent to denosumab in osteoporosis: A randomized trial (abstract 1065).
• Efficacy of burosumab in adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH): A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (abstract 1044).
• High-dose vitamin D supplementation affects bone density differently in females than males (abstract 1019).
• Bisphosphonate use and risk of atypical femoral fractures: A nationwide Danish analysis with blinded radiographic review (abstract 1061).

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The virtual American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting “is full of highlights,” says Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, scientific chair, but “this year you won’t lose time in the hallways to switch between the talks,” he quipped.

Nevertheless, “although we won’t be coming together face to face this year, you will have the flexibility to virtually connect with peers and colleagues from around the world,” Teresita Bellido, PhD, ASBMR president emphasized in a message to members.

Like other medical organizations, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASBMR had to quickly pivot to provide a virtual meeting.

The meeting will take place September 11-15 and is free for ASBMR members.  

Speaking to Medscape Medical News, Bellido and Hofbauer drew attention to some of the meeting’s major themes, key sessions, and top clinical oral abstracts.

Attendees at this year’s virtual meeting will hear the latest information on optimal sequential treatment for osteoporosis, the latest research using artificial intelligence (AI), and bone and cancer, among other topics.
 

Sequential osteoporosis treatment a recurring theme

According to Hofbauer, from Dresden Technical University, Germany, the September 13 Cutting Edge symposium entitled, “Optimizing Sequential Osteoporosis Treatment,” is not to be missed, and the topic “will be a leitmotiv [recurrent theme] for the entire meeting.”

During this session speakers will present findings from two perspectives – basic science and clinical applications – with the latter being another recurring theme at the meeting.

Bellido, from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock, pointed out that romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is an example of how basic laboratory research can lead to important new therapies.

Anabolic therapies for osteoporosis that “build up bone” include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and now romosozumab, whereas antiresorptive therapies that stop bone resorption include the bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab, Bellido explained.

As osteoporosis treatment options have expanded, the timing and sequencing of optimal therapies have become much more complex, and so this session on sequencing, as well as the September 13 Concurrent Orals session, “Issues of Long-term Treatment and Discontinuation,” is sure to spark interest.

The ASBMR/European Calcified Tissue Society debate, entitled, “A Treat to Target Approach is Helpful for Osteoporosis Management,” is also expected to be lively and generate wide interest, according to Bellido and Hofbauer.

Michael R. McClung, MD, Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, will argue against the motion and Celia Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol, UK, will argue for it. Attendees will be able to vote for/against the motion before and after the debate, and the result will indicate which speaker was more persuasive.
 

Bone cancer ultimately damages other tissues

The meeting will also offer attendees a close look at bone and cancer, which is an example of how “all the homeostatic processes that occur with bone not only affect bone but also impact other tissues and organs,” said Bellido.

In other words, “what happens in bone impacts other tissues – for example, skeletal muscle, the pancreas, and even frailty and fractures.”

Theresa A. Guise, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Austin, will present the Louis V. Avioli Lecture on September 11, entitled, “Cancer, Bone and Beyond: An Integrated View of the Bone Microenvironment.”

“Local events in the bone microenvironment due to cancer and cancer treatment which result in pathologic bone destruction may have widespread systemic consequences that further increase morbidity and mortality,” Hofbauer noted.

Guise “will highlight cutting-edge concepts, potential mechanisms, and therapy for bone metastases,” he said.

These concepts will also be discussed in more detail during a 2-day virtual premeeting symposium, presented on September 9 and 10 by the ASBMR along with the Cancer and Bone Society, entitled, “The Seed and Soil: Therapeutic Targets for Cancer in Bone.”

The symposium will cover tumor dormancy, imaging, adiposity in the bone tumor microenvironment, a history of bone-targeted therapies in cancer, advances in breast cancer bone metastasis, and new approaches in myeloma bone disease.

“We have evidence from breast cancer, multiple myeloma, as well as from prostate cancer,” Bellido noted, that “all those cancer cells make their home in bone and transform the bone in such a way that not only the bone is damaged but also other tissues.”

“We have skeletal muscle weakness (that is directed by the effects that occur in bone), as well as changes in the pancreas – all directed by proteins and genes in bone cells.”
 

AI, bench to bedside research

“Every field is moving towards the use of AI,” Bellido noted, and the September 11 plenary symposium entitled, “Artificial Intelligence and Precision Medicine in Musculoskeletal Health,” will shed light on how AI is being used to study bone health.

The session “will give us a glimpse of the future,” said Hofbauer.

Session topics include principles of applications to research and clinical care in bone and mineral research; how AI can help detect rare diseases; and combining genomics with medical data using AI in precision medicine for drug discovery.

“The Bench to Bedside presentation on ‘Beta Blockers and Bone’ is a great example of translational research, while the Basic Symposium on ‘Bones, Guts and Brains’ provides inspiring and thought-provoking insights into novel physiology and tempting teleology,” Hofbauer explained.

“Another fascinating Cutting Edge symposium,” he added, “is on ‘Inspiring Mechanistic Bone Stories from Around the Animal Kingdom,’ a must-see for those employing preclinical animal models.”

For more insight into early research and a research pioneer, attendees can listen to Selma Masri, PhD, from the University of California, Irvine, who will deliver the Gerald D. Aurbach Lecture entitled, “The Scientific Legacy of Paolo Sassone-Corsi: A Tour Through the Fields of Transcriptional Regulation, Epigenetics, Metabolism and Circadian Rhythms.”

Masri’s lab is dissecting how genetic disruption of the circadian clock in mouse models affects cancer, and she will discuss the work and legacy of the late Sassone-Corsi, as well as the future of the field.
 

Rare disease, fragility fractures

The ASBMR meeting will also feature the latest research into rare diseases and fragility fractures.

Rare diseases are often about “more bone or less bone,” said Bellido. “Understanding the mechanisms of these rare diseases can give us very important clues of treating the more common diseases.”

A fragility fracture is a diagnosis of osteoporosis, but most are not treated, she continued. “This is equivalent to having, for example, a heart attack and leaving the hospital after the incident was resolved and not treating it.”

“We’re trying to address this gap,” she said, and a symposium on September 14 will present some of the latest knowledge.

During the “Long-term Management of Fragility Fracture” symposium, speakers will discuss reducing mortality with antiosteoporotic treatment, new scenarios to prevent postfracture frailty, as well as fracture and postfracture management – surgeon and nursing perspectives.
 

COVID-19, nutrition, microbiome, and top 5 clinical abstracts

In addition to plenary sessions and symposiums, there are many oral abstracts and posters on important studies in the field of bone health, including, for example, a topical study of vitamin D and COVID-19.

There are also many abstracts on nutrition, the microbiome, and treating bone loss, said Bellido.

“We have a huge increase in the number of abstracts submitted from South America and Australia compared to previous years,” she noted, “and a 10% increase (from 50% to 61%) in the number of abstracts submitted by young investigators, which is crucial.”

Close to 1000 abstracts (988) were submitted, two thirds of which were clinical.

The top 5 clinical abstracts reflect important current issues in the field, said Hofbauer.

“One major theme is on long-term and sequential therapy efficacy and safety,” he said. And “burosumab is a game-changing new drug, and nutritional aspects are evergreens [perennial favorites], especially in the elderly population.”

The top 5 clinical oral abstracts at the ASBMR 2020 meeting are:

• Dairy supplementation reduces fractures and falls in institutionalized older adults: A cluster-randomized placebo-controlled trial (abstract 1022).
• Treatment with zoledronate subsequent to denosumab in osteoporosis: A randomized trial (abstract 1065).
• Efficacy of burosumab in adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH): A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (abstract 1044).
• High-dose vitamin D supplementation affects bone density differently in females than males (abstract 1019).
• Bisphosphonate use and risk of atypical femoral fractures: A nationwide Danish analysis with blinded radiographic review (abstract 1061).

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The virtual American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting “is full of highlights,” says Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, scientific chair, but “this year you won’t lose time in the hallways to switch between the talks,” he quipped.

Nevertheless, “although we won’t be coming together face to face this year, you will have the flexibility to virtually connect with peers and colleagues from around the world,” Teresita Bellido, PhD, ASBMR president emphasized in a message to members.

Like other medical organizations, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASBMR had to quickly pivot to provide a virtual meeting.

The meeting will take place September 11-15 and is free for ASBMR members.  

Speaking to Medscape Medical News, Bellido and Hofbauer drew attention to some of the meeting’s major themes, key sessions, and top clinical oral abstracts.

Attendees at this year’s virtual meeting will hear the latest information on optimal sequential treatment for osteoporosis, the latest research using artificial intelligence (AI), and bone and cancer, among other topics.
 

Sequential osteoporosis treatment a recurring theme

According to Hofbauer, from Dresden Technical University, Germany, the September 13 Cutting Edge symposium entitled, “Optimizing Sequential Osteoporosis Treatment,” is not to be missed, and the topic “will be a leitmotiv [recurrent theme] for the entire meeting.”

During this session speakers will present findings from two perspectives – basic science and clinical applications – with the latter being another recurring theme at the meeting.

Bellido, from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock, pointed out that romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, is an example of how basic laboratory research can lead to important new therapies.

Anabolic therapies for osteoporosis that “build up bone” include teriparatide, abaloparatide, and now romosozumab, whereas antiresorptive therapies that stop bone resorption include the bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab, Bellido explained.

As osteoporosis treatment options have expanded, the timing and sequencing of optimal therapies have become much more complex, and so this session on sequencing, as well as the September 13 Concurrent Orals session, “Issues of Long-term Treatment and Discontinuation,” is sure to spark interest.

The ASBMR/European Calcified Tissue Society debate, entitled, “A Treat to Target Approach is Helpful for Osteoporosis Management,” is also expected to be lively and generate wide interest, according to Bellido and Hofbauer.

Michael R. McClung, MD, Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, will argue against the motion and Celia Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol, UK, will argue for it. Attendees will be able to vote for/against the motion before and after the debate, and the result will indicate which speaker was more persuasive.
 

Bone cancer ultimately damages other tissues

The meeting will also offer attendees a close look at bone and cancer, which is an example of how “all the homeostatic processes that occur with bone not only affect bone but also impact other tissues and organs,” said Bellido.

In other words, “what happens in bone impacts other tissues – for example, skeletal muscle, the pancreas, and even frailty and fractures.”

Theresa A. Guise, MD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Austin, will present the Louis V. Avioli Lecture on September 11, entitled, “Cancer, Bone and Beyond: An Integrated View of the Bone Microenvironment.”

“Local events in the bone microenvironment due to cancer and cancer treatment which result in pathologic bone destruction may have widespread systemic consequences that further increase morbidity and mortality,” Hofbauer noted.

Guise “will highlight cutting-edge concepts, potential mechanisms, and therapy for bone metastases,” he said.

These concepts will also be discussed in more detail during a 2-day virtual premeeting symposium, presented on September 9 and 10 by the ASBMR along with the Cancer and Bone Society, entitled, “The Seed and Soil: Therapeutic Targets for Cancer in Bone.”

The symposium will cover tumor dormancy, imaging, adiposity in the bone tumor microenvironment, a history of bone-targeted therapies in cancer, advances in breast cancer bone metastasis, and new approaches in myeloma bone disease.

“We have evidence from breast cancer, multiple myeloma, as well as from prostate cancer,” Bellido noted, that “all those cancer cells make their home in bone and transform the bone in such a way that not only the bone is damaged but also other tissues.”

“We have skeletal muscle weakness (that is directed by the effects that occur in bone), as well as changes in the pancreas – all directed by proteins and genes in bone cells.”
 

AI, bench to bedside research

“Every field is moving towards the use of AI,” Bellido noted, and the September 11 plenary symposium entitled, “Artificial Intelligence and Precision Medicine in Musculoskeletal Health,” will shed light on how AI is being used to study bone health.

The session “will give us a glimpse of the future,” said Hofbauer.

Session topics include principles of applications to research and clinical care in bone and mineral research; how AI can help detect rare diseases; and combining genomics with medical data using AI in precision medicine for drug discovery.

“The Bench to Bedside presentation on ‘Beta Blockers and Bone’ is a great example of translational research, while the Basic Symposium on ‘Bones, Guts and Brains’ provides inspiring and thought-provoking insights into novel physiology and tempting teleology,” Hofbauer explained.

“Another fascinating Cutting Edge symposium,” he added, “is on ‘Inspiring Mechanistic Bone Stories from Around the Animal Kingdom,’ a must-see for those employing preclinical animal models.”

For more insight into early research and a research pioneer, attendees can listen to Selma Masri, PhD, from the University of California, Irvine, who will deliver the Gerald D. Aurbach Lecture entitled, “The Scientific Legacy of Paolo Sassone-Corsi: A Tour Through the Fields of Transcriptional Regulation, Epigenetics, Metabolism and Circadian Rhythms.”

Masri’s lab is dissecting how genetic disruption of the circadian clock in mouse models affects cancer, and she will discuss the work and legacy of the late Sassone-Corsi, as well as the future of the field.
 

Rare disease, fragility fractures

The ASBMR meeting will also feature the latest research into rare diseases and fragility fractures.

Rare diseases are often about “more bone or less bone,” said Bellido. “Understanding the mechanisms of these rare diseases can give us very important clues of treating the more common diseases.”

A fragility fracture is a diagnosis of osteoporosis, but most are not treated, she continued. “This is equivalent to having, for example, a heart attack and leaving the hospital after the incident was resolved and not treating it.”

“We’re trying to address this gap,” she said, and a symposium on September 14 will present some of the latest knowledge.

During the “Long-term Management of Fragility Fracture” symposium, speakers will discuss reducing mortality with antiosteoporotic treatment, new scenarios to prevent postfracture frailty, as well as fracture and postfracture management – surgeon and nursing perspectives.
 

COVID-19, nutrition, microbiome, and top 5 clinical abstracts

In addition to plenary sessions and symposiums, there are many oral abstracts and posters on important studies in the field of bone health, including, for example, a topical study of vitamin D and COVID-19.

There are also many abstracts on nutrition, the microbiome, and treating bone loss, said Bellido.

“We have a huge increase in the number of abstracts submitted from South America and Australia compared to previous years,” she noted, “and a 10% increase (from 50% to 61%) in the number of abstracts submitted by young investigators, which is crucial.”

Close to 1000 abstracts (988) were submitted, two thirds of which were clinical.

The top 5 clinical abstracts reflect important current issues in the field, said Hofbauer.

“One major theme is on long-term and sequential therapy efficacy and safety,” he said. And “burosumab is a game-changing new drug, and nutritional aspects are evergreens [perennial favorites], especially in the elderly population.”

The top 5 clinical oral abstracts at the ASBMR 2020 meeting are:

• Dairy supplementation reduces fractures and falls in institutionalized older adults: A cluster-randomized placebo-controlled trial (abstract 1022).
• Treatment with zoledronate subsequent to denosumab in osteoporosis: A randomized trial (abstract 1065).
• Efficacy of burosumab in adults with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH): A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (abstract 1044).
• High-dose vitamin D supplementation affects bone density differently in females than males (abstract 1019).
• Bisphosphonate use and risk of atypical femoral fractures: A nationwide Danish analysis with blinded radiographic review (abstract 1061).

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For children with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and ventilator use were similar to those of children with influenza, but rates differed in other respects, according to results of a study published online Sept. 11 in JAMA Network Open.

As winter approaches, distinguishing patients with COVID-19 from those with influenza will become a problem. To assist with that, Xiaoyan Song, PhD, director of the office of infection control and epidemiology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and colleagues investigated commonalities and differences between the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and influenza in children.

“Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu and other respiratory viral infections remains a challenge to clinicians. Although our study showed that patients with COVID-19 were more likely than patients with flu to report fever, gastrointestinal, and other clinical symptoms at the time of diagnosis, the two groups do have many overlapping clinical symptoms,” Dr. Song said. “Until future data show us otherwise, clinicians need to prepare for managing coinfections of COVID-19 with flu and/or other respiratory viral infections in the upcoming flu season.”

The retrospective cohort study included 315 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 25 and May 15, 2020, and 1,402 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed seasonal influenza A or influenza B between Oct. 1, 2019, and June 6, 2020, at Children’s National Hospital. The investigation excluded asymptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 and patients with influenza were similar with respect to rates of hospitalization (17% vs. 21%; odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.1; P = .15), admission to the ICU (6% vs. 7%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .42), and use of mechanical ventilation (3% vs. 2%; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.6; P =.17).

The difference in the duration of ventilation for the two groups was not statistically significant. None of the patients who had COVID-19 or influenza B died, but two patients with influenza A did.

No patients had coinfections, which the researchers attribute to the mid-March shutdown of many schools, which they believe limited the spread of seasonal influenza.

Patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were older (median age, 9.7 years; range, 0.06-23.2 years) than those hospitalized with either type of influenza (median age, 4.2 years; range, 0.04-23.1). Patients older than 15 years made up 37% of patients with COVID-19 but only 6% of those with influenza.

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 65% had at least one underlying medical condition, compared with 42% of those hospitalized for either type of influenza (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.7; P = .002).

The most common underlying condition was neurologic problems from global developmental delay or seizures, identified in 11 patients (20%) hospitalized with COVID-19 and in 24 patients (8%) hospitalized with influenza (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to a history of asthma, cardiac disease, hematologic disease, and cancer.

For both groups, fever and cough were the most frequently reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis. However, more patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported fever (76% vs. 55%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 01), diarrhea or vomiting (26% vs. 12%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P = .01), headache (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01), myalgia (22% vs. 7%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.5; P = .001), or chest pain (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01).

The researchers found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in rates of cough, congestion, sore throat, or shortness of breath.

Comparison of the symptom spectrum between COVID-19 and flu differed with respect to influenza type. More patients with COVID-19 reported fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, and myalgia than patients hospitalized with influenza A. But rates of fever, cough, diarrhea or vomiting, headache, or chest pain didn’t differ significantly in patients with COVID-19 and those with influenza B.

Larry K. Kociolek, MD, medical director of infection prevention and control at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, noted the lower age of patients with flu. “Differentiating the two infections, which is difficult if not impossible based on symptoms alone, may have prognostic implications, depending on the age of the child. Because this study was performed outside peak influenza season, when coinfections would be less likely to occur, we must be vigilant about the potential clinical implications of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection this fall and winter.”

Clinicians will still have to use a combination of symptoms, examinations, and testing to distinguish the two diseases, said Aimee Sznewajs, MD, medical director of the pediatric hospital medicine department at Children’s Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We will continue to test for influenza and COVID-19 prior to hospitalizations and make decisions about whether to hospitalize based on other clinical factors, such as dehydration, oxygen requirement, and vital sign changes.”

Dr. Sznewajs stressed the importance of maintaining public health strategies, including “ensuring all children get the flu vaccine, encouraging mask wearing and hand hygiene, adequate testing to determine which virus is present, and other mitigation measures if the prevalence of COVID-19 is increasing in the community.”

Dr. Song reiterated those points, noting that clinicians need to make the most of the options they have. “Clinicians already have many great tools on hand. It is extremely important to get the flu vaccine now, especially for kids with underlying medical conditions. Diagnostic tests are available for both COVID-19 and flu. Antiviral treatment for flu is available. Judicious use of these tools will protect the health of providers, kids, and well-being at large.”

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including its retrospective design, that the data came from a single center, and that different platforms were used to detect the viruses.

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

For children with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and ventilator use were similar to those of children with influenza, but rates differed in other respects, according to results of a study published online Sept. 11 in JAMA Network Open.

As winter approaches, distinguishing patients with COVID-19 from those with influenza will become a problem. To assist with that, Xiaoyan Song, PhD, director of the office of infection control and epidemiology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and colleagues investigated commonalities and differences between the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and influenza in children.

“Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu and other respiratory viral infections remains a challenge to clinicians. Although our study showed that patients with COVID-19 were more likely than patients with flu to report fever, gastrointestinal, and other clinical symptoms at the time of diagnosis, the two groups do have many overlapping clinical symptoms,” Dr. Song said. “Until future data show us otherwise, clinicians need to prepare for managing coinfections of COVID-19 with flu and/or other respiratory viral infections in the upcoming flu season.”

The retrospective cohort study included 315 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 25 and May 15, 2020, and 1,402 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed seasonal influenza A or influenza B between Oct. 1, 2019, and June 6, 2020, at Children’s National Hospital. The investigation excluded asymptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 and patients with influenza were similar with respect to rates of hospitalization (17% vs. 21%; odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.1; P = .15), admission to the ICU (6% vs. 7%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .42), and use of mechanical ventilation (3% vs. 2%; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.6; P =.17).

The difference in the duration of ventilation for the two groups was not statistically significant. None of the patients who had COVID-19 or influenza B died, but two patients with influenza A did.

No patients had coinfections, which the researchers attribute to the mid-March shutdown of many schools, which they believe limited the spread of seasonal influenza.

Patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were older (median age, 9.7 years; range, 0.06-23.2 years) than those hospitalized with either type of influenza (median age, 4.2 years; range, 0.04-23.1). Patients older than 15 years made up 37% of patients with COVID-19 but only 6% of those with influenza.

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 65% had at least one underlying medical condition, compared with 42% of those hospitalized for either type of influenza (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.7; P = .002).

The most common underlying condition was neurologic problems from global developmental delay or seizures, identified in 11 patients (20%) hospitalized with COVID-19 and in 24 patients (8%) hospitalized with influenza (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to a history of asthma, cardiac disease, hematologic disease, and cancer.

For both groups, fever and cough were the most frequently reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis. However, more patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported fever (76% vs. 55%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 01), diarrhea or vomiting (26% vs. 12%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P = .01), headache (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01), myalgia (22% vs. 7%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.5; P = .001), or chest pain (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01).

The researchers found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in rates of cough, congestion, sore throat, or shortness of breath.

Comparison of the symptom spectrum between COVID-19 and flu differed with respect to influenza type. More patients with COVID-19 reported fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, and myalgia than patients hospitalized with influenza A. But rates of fever, cough, diarrhea or vomiting, headache, or chest pain didn’t differ significantly in patients with COVID-19 and those with influenza B.

Larry K. Kociolek, MD, medical director of infection prevention and control at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, noted the lower age of patients with flu. “Differentiating the two infections, which is difficult if not impossible based on symptoms alone, may have prognostic implications, depending on the age of the child. Because this study was performed outside peak influenza season, when coinfections would be less likely to occur, we must be vigilant about the potential clinical implications of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection this fall and winter.”

Clinicians will still have to use a combination of symptoms, examinations, and testing to distinguish the two diseases, said Aimee Sznewajs, MD, medical director of the pediatric hospital medicine department at Children’s Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We will continue to test for influenza and COVID-19 prior to hospitalizations and make decisions about whether to hospitalize based on other clinical factors, such as dehydration, oxygen requirement, and vital sign changes.”

Dr. Sznewajs stressed the importance of maintaining public health strategies, including “ensuring all children get the flu vaccine, encouraging mask wearing and hand hygiene, adequate testing to determine which virus is present, and other mitigation measures if the prevalence of COVID-19 is increasing in the community.”

Dr. Song reiterated those points, noting that clinicians need to make the most of the options they have. “Clinicians already have many great tools on hand. It is extremely important to get the flu vaccine now, especially for kids with underlying medical conditions. Diagnostic tests are available for both COVID-19 and flu. Antiviral treatment for flu is available. Judicious use of these tools will protect the health of providers, kids, and well-being at large.”

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including its retrospective design, that the data came from a single center, and that different platforms were used to detect the viruses.

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

For children with COVID-19, rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and ventilator use were similar to those of children with influenza, but rates differed in other respects, according to results of a study published online Sept. 11 in JAMA Network Open.

As winter approaches, distinguishing patients with COVID-19 from those with influenza will become a problem. To assist with that, Xiaoyan Song, PhD, director of the office of infection control and epidemiology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and colleagues investigated commonalities and differences between the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and influenza in children.

“Distinguishing COVID-19 from flu and other respiratory viral infections remains a challenge to clinicians. Although our study showed that patients with COVID-19 were more likely than patients with flu to report fever, gastrointestinal, and other clinical symptoms at the time of diagnosis, the two groups do have many overlapping clinical symptoms,” Dr. Song said. “Until future data show us otherwise, clinicians need to prepare for managing coinfections of COVID-19 with flu and/or other respiratory viral infections in the upcoming flu season.”

The retrospective cohort study included 315 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between March 25 and May 15, 2020, and 1,402 children diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed seasonal influenza A or influenza B between Oct. 1, 2019, and June 6, 2020, at Children’s National Hospital. The investigation excluded asymptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 and patients with influenza were similar with respect to rates of hospitalization (17% vs. 21%; odds ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.1; P = .15), admission to the ICU (6% vs. 7%; OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .42), and use of mechanical ventilation (3% vs. 2%; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.6; P =.17).

The difference in the duration of ventilation for the two groups was not statistically significant. None of the patients who had COVID-19 or influenza B died, but two patients with influenza A did.

No patients had coinfections, which the researchers attribute to the mid-March shutdown of many schools, which they believe limited the spread of seasonal influenza.

Patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were older (median age, 9.7 years; range, 0.06-23.2 years) than those hospitalized with either type of influenza (median age, 4.2 years; range, 0.04-23.1). Patients older than 15 years made up 37% of patients with COVID-19 but only 6% of those with influenza.

Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 65% had at least one underlying medical condition, compared with 42% of those hospitalized for either type of influenza (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.7; P = .002).

The most common underlying condition was neurologic problems from global developmental delay or seizures, identified in 11 patients (20%) hospitalized with COVID-19 and in 24 patients (8%) hospitalized with influenza (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .002). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to a history of asthma, cardiac disease, hematologic disease, and cancer.

For both groups, fever and cough were the most frequently reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis. However, more patients hospitalized with COVID-19 reported fever (76% vs. 55%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; P = 01), diarrhea or vomiting (26% vs. 12%; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.0; P = .01), headache (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01), myalgia (22% vs. 7%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.8-8.5; P = .001), or chest pain (11% vs. 3%; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5; P = .01).

The researchers found no statistically significant differences between the two groups in rates of cough, congestion, sore throat, or shortness of breath.

Comparison of the symptom spectrum between COVID-19 and flu differed with respect to influenza type. More patients with COVID-19 reported fever, cough, diarrhea and vomiting, and myalgia than patients hospitalized with influenza A. But rates of fever, cough, diarrhea or vomiting, headache, or chest pain didn’t differ significantly in patients with COVID-19 and those with influenza B.

Larry K. Kociolek, MD, medical director of infection prevention and control at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, noted the lower age of patients with flu. “Differentiating the two infections, which is difficult if not impossible based on symptoms alone, may have prognostic implications, depending on the age of the child. Because this study was performed outside peak influenza season, when coinfections would be less likely to occur, we must be vigilant about the potential clinical implications of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection this fall and winter.”

Clinicians will still have to use a combination of symptoms, examinations, and testing to distinguish the two diseases, said Aimee Sznewajs, MD, medical director of the pediatric hospital medicine department at Children’s Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We will continue to test for influenza and COVID-19 prior to hospitalizations and make decisions about whether to hospitalize based on other clinical factors, such as dehydration, oxygen requirement, and vital sign changes.”

Dr. Sznewajs stressed the importance of maintaining public health strategies, including “ensuring all children get the flu vaccine, encouraging mask wearing and hand hygiene, adequate testing to determine which virus is present, and other mitigation measures if the prevalence of COVID-19 is increasing in the community.”

Dr. Song reiterated those points, noting that clinicians need to make the most of the options they have. “Clinicians already have many great tools on hand. It is extremely important to get the flu vaccine now, especially for kids with underlying medical conditions. Diagnostic tests are available for both COVID-19 and flu. Antiviral treatment for flu is available. Judicious use of these tools will protect the health of providers, kids, and well-being at large.”

The authors noted several limitations for the study, including its retrospective design, that the data came from a single center, and that different platforms were used to detect the viruses.

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

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Cocoa. A 2017 Cochrane review evaluated data from more than 1800 patients (401 in hypertension studies) to determine the effect of cocoa on BP.¹ Compared with placebo (in flavanol-free or low-flavanol controls), cocoa lowered systolic BP by 1.8 mm Hg (confidence interval [CI], –3.1 to –0.4) and diastolic BP by 1.8 mm Hg (CI, –2.6 to –0.9). Further analysis of patients with hypertension (only) showed a reduction in systolic BP of 4 mm Hg (CI, –6.7 to –1.3).

Omega-3 fatty acids. Similarly, a 2014 meta-analysis investigating omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] + docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) included data from 4489 patients (956 with hypertension) and showed reductions in systolic BP of 1.5 mm Hg (CI, –2.3 to –0.8) and diastolic BP of 1 mm Hg (CI, –1.5 to –0.4), compared with placebo.² Again, subgroup analysis of patients with hypertension (only) at baseline revealed a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic BP: 4.5 mm Hg (CI, –6.1 to –2.8) and 3.1 mm Hg (CI, –4.4 to –1.8), respectively.

Garlic and potassium chloride. Separate meta-analyses that included only patients with hypertension found that both garlic and potassium significantly lowered BP.^3,4 A 2015 meta-analysis comparing a variety of garlic preparations with placebo in patients with hypertension showed decreases in systolic BP of 9.1 mm Hg (CI, –12.7 to –5.4) and in diastolic BP of 3.8 mm Hg (CI, –6.7 to –1).³ Meanwhile, a meta-analysis in 2017 comparing different doses of potassium chloride with placebo demonstrated reductions in systolic BP of 4.3 mm Hg (CI, –6 to –2.5) and diastolic BP of 2.5 mm Hg (CI, –4.1 to –1).⁴

L-arginine. Another meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported evidence that oral L-arginine, compared with placebo, significantly reduced systolic BP by 5.4 mm Hg (CI, –8.5 to –2.3) and diastolic BP by 2.7 mm Hg (CI, –3.8 to –1.5).⁵ Close to one-third of patients had hypertension at baseline.

Beetroot juice. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that consumption of beetroot juice (with nitrate) once daily reduced BP in 3 different settings (clinic, 24-hour ambulatory, and home readings) when compared with placebo (nitrate-free beetroot juice).⁶ Study participants were mostly British women, overweight, without significant c­ardiovascular or renal disease, and with uncontrolled ambulatory BP (> 135/85 mm Hg).

Flax seed. A prospective, double-blind trial of patients with peripheral artery disease compared the antihypertensive effects of flax seed with placebo in patients with and without hypertension and found marked decreases in systolic and diastolic BP.⁷ Study participants were all older than 40 years without other major cardiac or renal disease, and the majority of enrolled patients with hypertension were concurrently taking medications to treat hypertension during the study.

Olive leaf extract. A double-blind, parallel, and active-control clinical trial in Indonesia compared the BP-lowering effect of olive leaf extract (Olea europaea) to captopril as monotherapies in patients with stage 1 hypertension.⁸ After a 4-week period of dietary intervention, individuals who were still hypertensive (range, 140/90 to 159/99 mm Hg) were treated with either olive leaf extract or captopril. After 8 weeks of treatment, both groups saw comparable reductions in BP.   

Continue to: Editor's takeaway

Editor’s takeaway

Many studies have demonstrated BP benefits from a variety of natural supplements. Although the studies’ durations are short, the effects sometimes modest, and the outcomes disease-oriented rather than patient-oriented, the findings can provide a useful complement to our efforts to manage this most common chronic disease.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Cocoa. A 2017 Cochrane review evaluated data from more than 1800 patients (401 in hypertension studies) to determine the effect of cocoa on BP.¹ Compared with placebo (in flavanol-free or low-flavanol controls), cocoa lowered systolic BP by 1.8 mm Hg (confidence interval [CI], –3.1 to –0.4) and diastolic BP by 1.8 mm Hg (CI, –2.6 to –0.9). Further analysis of patients with hypertension (only) showed a reduction in systolic BP of 4 mm Hg (CI, –6.7 to –1.3).

Omega-3 fatty acids. Similarly, a 2014 meta-analysis investigating omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] + docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) included data from 4489 patients (956 with hypertension) and showed reductions in systolic BP of 1.5 mm Hg (CI, –2.3 to –0.8) and diastolic BP of 1 mm Hg (CI, –1.5 to –0.4), compared with placebo.² Again, subgroup analysis of patients with hypertension (only) at baseline revealed a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic BP: 4.5 mm Hg (CI, –6.1 to –2.8) and 3.1 mm Hg (CI, –4.4 to –1.8), respectively.

Garlic and potassium chloride. Separate meta-analyses that included only patients with hypertension found that both garlic and potassium significantly lowered BP.^3,4 A 2015 meta-analysis comparing a variety of garlic preparations with placebo in patients with hypertension showed decreases in systolic BP of 9.1 mm Hg (CI, –12.7 to –5.4) and in diastolic BP of 3.8 mm Hg (CI, –6.7 to –1).³ Meanwhile, a meta-analysis in 2017 comparing different doses of potassium chloride with placebo demonstrated reductions in systolic BP of 4.3 mm Hg (CI, –6 to –2.5) and diastolic BP of 2.5 mm Hg (CI, –4.1 to –1).⁴

L-arginine. Another meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported evidence that oral L-arginine, compared with placebo, significantly reduced systolic BP by 5.4 mm Hg (CI, –8.5 to –2.3) and diastolic BP by 2.7 mm Hg (CI, –3.8 to –1.5).⁵ Close to one-third of patients had hypertension at baseline.

Beetroot juice. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that consumption of beetroot juice (with nitrate) once daily reduced BP in 3 different settings (clinic, 24-hour ambulatory, and home readings) when compared with placebo (nitrate-free beetroot juice).⁶ Study participants were mostly British women, overweight, without significant c­ardiovascular or renal disease, and with uncontrolled ambulatory BP (> 135/85 mm Hg).

Flax seed. A prospective, double-blind trial of patients with peripheral artery disease compared the antihypertensive effects of flax seed with placebo in patients with and without hypertension and found marked decreases in systolic and diastolic BP.⁷ Study participants were all older than 40 years without other major cardiac or renal disease, and the majority of enrolled patients with hypertension were concurrently taking medications to treat hypertension during the study.

Olive leaf extract. A double-blind, parallel, and active-control clinical trial in Indonesia compared the BP-lowering effect of olive leaf extract (Olea europaea) to captopril as monotherapies in patients with stage 1 hypertension.⁸ After a 4-week period of dietary intervention, individuals who were still hypertensive (range, 140/90 to 159/99 mm Hg) were treated with either olive leaf extract or captopril. After 8 weeks of treatment, both groups saw comparable reductions in BP.   

Continue to: Editor's takeaway

Editor’s takeaway

Many studies have demonstrated BP benefits from a variety of natural supplements. Although the studies’ durations are short, the effects sometimes modest, and the outcomes disease-oriented rather than patient-oriented, the findings can provide a useful complement to our efforts to manage this most common chronic disease.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Cocoa. A 2017 Cochrane review evaluated data from more than 1800 patients (401 in hypertension studies) to determine the effect of cocoa on BP.¹ Compared with placebo (in flavanol-free or low-flavanol controls), cocoa lowered systolic BP by 1.8 mm Hg (confidence interval [CI], –3.1 to –0.4) and diastolic BP by 1.8 mm Hg (CI, –2.6 to –0.9). Further analysis of patients with hypertension (only) showed a reduction in systolic BP of 4 mm Hg (CI, –6.7 to –1.3).

Omega-3 fatty acids. Similarly, a 2014 meta-analysis investigating omega-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] + docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) included data from 4489 patients (956 with hypertension) and showed reductions in systolic BP of 1.5 mm Hg (CI, –2.3 to –0.8) and diastolic BP of 1 mm Hg (CI, –1.5 to –0.4), compared with placebo.² Again, subgroup analysis of patients with hypertension (only) at baseline revealed a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic BP: 4.5 mm Hg (CI, –6.1 to –2.8) and 3.1 mm Hg (CI, –4.4 to –1.8), respectively.

Garlic and potassium chloride. Separate meta-analyses that included only patients with hypertension found that both garlic and potassium significantly lowered BP.^3,4 A 2015 meta-analysis comparing a variety of garlic preparations with placebo in patients with hypertension showed decreases in systolic BP of 9.1 mm Hg (CI, –12.7 to –5.4) and in diastolic BP of 3.8 mm Hg (CI, –6.7 to –1).³ Meanwhile, a meta-analysis in 2017 comparing different doses of potassium chloride with placebo demonstrated reductions in systolic BP of 4.3 mm Hg (CI, –6 to –2.5) and diastolic BP of 2.5 mm Hg (CI, –4.1 to –1).⁴

L-arginine. Another meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported evidence that oral L-arginine, compared with placebo, significantly reduced systolic BP by 5.4 mm Hg (CI, –8.5 to –2.3) and diastolic BP by 2.7 mm Hg (CI, –3.8 to –1.5).⁵ Close to one-third of patients had hypertension at baseline.

Beetroot juice. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that consumption of beetroot juice (with nitrate) once daily reduced BP in 3 different settings (clinic, 24-hour ambulatory, and home readings) when compared with placebo (nitrate-free beetroot juice).⁶ Study participants were mostly British women, overweight, without significant c­ardiovascular or renal disease, and with uncontrolled ambulatory BP (> 135/85 mm Hg).

Flax seed. A prospective, double-blind trial of patients with peripheral artery disease compared the antihypertensive effects of flax seed with placebo in patients with and without hypertension and found marked decreases in systolic and diastolic BP.⁷ Study participants were all older than 40 years without other major cardiac or renal disease, and the majority of enrolled patients with hypertension were concurrently taking medications to treat hypertension during the study.

Olive leaf extract. A double-blind, parallel, and active-control clinical trial in Indonesia compared the BP-lowering effect of olive leaf extract (Olea europaea) to captopril as monotherapies in patients with stage 1 hypertension.⁸ After a 4-week period of dietary intervention, individuals who were still hypertensive (range, 140/90 to 159/99 mm Hg) were treated with either olive leaf extract or captopril. After 8 weeks of treatment, both groups saw comparable reductions in BP.   

Continue to: Editor's takeaway

Editor’s takeaway

Many studies have demonstrated BP benefits from a variety of natural supplements. Although the studies’ durations are short, the effects sometimes modest, and the outcomes disease-oriented rather than patient-oriented, the findings can provide a useful complement to our efforts to manage this most common chronic disease.

Conventional chest x-rays combined with artificial intelligence (AI) can identify lung damage from COVID-19 and differentiate coronavirus patients from other patients, improving triage efforts, new research suggests.

The AI tool – developed by Jason Fleischer, PhD, and graduate student Mohammad Tariqul Islam, both from Princeton (N.J.) University – can distinguish COVID-19 patients from those with pneumonia or normal lung tissue with an accuracy of more than 95%.

“We were able to separate the COVID-19 patients with very high fidelity,” Dr. Fleischer said in an interview. “If you give me an x-ray now, I can say with very high confidence whether a patient has COVID-19.”

The diagnostic tool pinpoints patterns on x-ray images that are too subtle for even trained experts to notice. The precision of CT scanning is similar to that of the AI tool, but CT costs much more and has other disadvantages, said Dr. Fleischer, who presented his findings at the virtual European Respiratory Society International Congress 2020.

“CT is more expensive and uses higher doses of radiation,” he said. “Another big thing is that not everyone has tomography facilities – including a lot of rural places and developing countries – so you need something that’s on the spot.”

With machine learning, Dr. Fleischer analyzed 2,300 x-ray images: 1,018 “normal” images from patients who had neither pneumonia nor COVID-19, 1,011 from patients with pneumonia, and 271 from patients with COVID-19.

The AI tool uses a neural network to refine the number and type of lung features being tracked. A UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) clustering algorithm then looks for similarities and differences in those images, he explained.

“We, as users, knew which type each x-ray was – normal, pneumonia positive, or COVID-19 positive – but the network did not,” he added.

Clinicians have observed two basic types of lung problems in COVID-19 patients: pneumonia that fills lung air sacs with fluid and dangerously low blood-oxygen levels despite nearly normal breathing patterns. Because treatment can vary according to type, it would be beneficial to quickly distinguish between them, Dr. Fleischer said.

The AI tool showed that there is a distinct difference in chest x-rays from pneumonia-positive patients and healthy people, he said. It also demonstrated two distinct clusters of COVID-19–positive chest x-rays: those that looked like pneumonia and those with a more normal presentation.

The fact that “the AI system recognizes something unique in chest x-rays from COVID-19–positive patients” indicates that the computer is able to identify visual markers for coronavirus, he explained. “We currently do not know what these markers are.”

Dr. Fleischer said his goal is not to replace physician decision-making, but to supplement it.

“I’m uncomfortable with having computers make the final decision,” he said. “They often have a narrow focus, whereas doctors have the big picture in mind.”

This AI tool is “very interesting,” especially in the context of expanding AI applications in various specialties, said Thierry Fumeaux, MD, from Nyon (Switzerland) Hospital. Some physicians currently disagree on whether a chest x-ray or CT scan is the better tool to help diagnose COVID-19.

“It seems better than the human eye and brain” to pinpoint COVID-19 lung damage, “so it’s very attractive as a technology,” Dr. Fumeaux said in an interview.

And AI can be used to supplement the efforts of busy and fatigued clinicians who might be stretched thin by large caseloads. “I cannot read 200 chest x-rays in a day, but a computer can do that in 2 minutes,” he said.

But Dr. Fumeaux offered a caveat: “Pattern recognition is promising, but at the moment I’m not aware of papers showing that, by using AI, you’re changing anything in the outcome of a patient.”

Ideally, Dr. Fleischer said he hopes that AI will soon be able to accurately indicate which treatments are most effective for individual COVID-19 patients. And the technology might eventually be used to help with treatment decisions for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

But he needs more data before results indicate whether a COVID-19 patient would benefit from ventilator support, for example, and the tool can be used more widely. To contribute data or collaborate with Dr. Fleischer’s efforts, contact him.

“Machine learning is all about data, so you can find these correlations,” he said. “It would be nice to be able to use it to reassure a worried patient that their prognosis is good; to say that most of the people with symptoms like yours will be just fine.”

Dr. Fleischer and Dr. Fumeaux have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Conventional chest x-rays combined with artificial intelligence (AI) can identify lung damage from COVID-19 and differentiate coronavirus patients from other patients, improving triage efforts, new research suggests.

The AI tool – developed by Jason Fleischer, PhD, and graduate student Mohammad Tariqul Islam, both from Princeton (N.J.) University – can distinguish COVID-19 patients from those with pneumonia or normal lung tissue with an accuracy of more than 95%.

“We were able to separate the COVID-19 patients with very high fidelity,” Dr. Fleischer said in an interview. “If you give me an x-ray now, I can say with very high confidence whether a patient has COVID-19.”

The diagnostic tool pinpoints patterns on x-ray images that are too subtle for even trained experts to notice. The precision of CT scanning is similar to that of the AI tool, but CT costs much more and has other disadvantages, said Dr. Fleischer, who presented his findings at the virtual European Respiratory Society International Congress 2020.

“CT is more expensive and uses higher doses of radiation,” he said. “Another big thing is that not everyone has tomography facilities – including a lot of rural places and developing countries – so you need something that’s on the spot.”

With machine learning, Dr. Fleischer analyzed 2,300 x-ray images: 1,018 “normal” images from patients who had neither pneumonia nor COVID-19, 1,011 from patients with pneumonia, and 271 from patients with COVID-19.

The AI tool uses a neural network to refine the number and type of lung features being tracked. A UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) clustering algorithm then looks for similarities and differences in those images, he explained.

“We, as users, knew which type each x-ray was – normal, pneumonia positive, or COVID-19 positive – but the network did not,” he added.

Clinicians have observed two basic types of lung problems in COVID-19 patients: pneumonia that fills lung air sacs with fluid and dangerously low blood-oxygen levels despite nearly normal breathing patterns. Because treatment can vary according to type, it would be beneficial to quickly distinguish between them, Dr. Fleischer said.

The AI tool showed that there is a distinct difference in chest x-rays from pneumonia-positive patients and healthy people, he said. It also demonstrated two distinct clusters of COVID-19–positive chest x-rays: those that looked like pneumonia and those with a more normal presentation.

The fact that “the AI system recognizes something unique in chest x-rays from COVID-19–positive patients” indicates that the computer is able to identify visual markers for coronavirus, he explained. “We currently do not know what these markers are.”

Dr. Fleischer said his goal is not to replace physician decision-making, but to supplement it.

“I’m uncomfortable with having computers make the final decision,” he said. “They often have a narrow focus, whereas doctors have the big picture in mind.”

This AI tool is “very interesting,” especially in the context of expanding AI applications in various specialties, said Thierry Fumeaux, MD, from Nyon (Switzerland) Hospital. Some physicians currently disagree on whether a chest x-ray or CT scan is the better tool to help diagnose COVID-19.

“It seems better than the human eye and brain” to pinpoint COVID-19 lung damage, “so it’s very attractive as a technology,” Dr. Fumeaux said in an interview.

And AI can be used to supplement the efforts of busy and fatigued clinicians who might be stretched thin by large caseloads. “I cannot read 200 chest x-rays in a day, but a computer can do that in 2 minutes,” he said.

But Dr. Fumeaux offered a caveat: “Pattern recognition is promising, but at the moment I’m not aware of papers showing that, by using AI, you’re changing anything in the outcome of a patient.”

Ideally, Dr. Fleischer said he hopes that AI will soon be able to accurately indicate which treatments are most effective for individual COVID-19 patients. And the technology might eventually be used to help with treatment decisions for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

But he needs more data before results indicate whether a COVID-19 patient would benefit from ventilator support, for example, and the tool can be used more widely. To contribute data or collaborate with Dr. Fleischer’s efforts, contact him.

“Machine learning is all about data, so you can find these correlations,” he said. “It would be nice to be able to use it to reassure a worried patient that their prognosis is good; to say that most of the people with symptoms like yours will be just fine.”

Dr. Fleischer and Dr. Fumeaux have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Conventional chest x-rays combined with artificial intelligence (AI) can identify lung damage from COVID-19 and differentiate coronavirus patients from other patients, improving triage efforts, new research suggests.

The AI tool – developed by Jason Fleischer, PhD, and graduate student Mohammad Tariqul Islam, both from Princeton (N.J.) University – can distinguish COVID-19 patients from those with pneumonia or normal lung tissue with an accuracy of more than 95%.

“We were able to separate the COVID-19 patients with very high fidelity,” Dr. Fleischer said in an interview. “If you give me an x-ray now, I can say with very high confidence whether a patient has COVID-19.”

The diagnostic tool pinpoints patterns on x-ray images that are too subtle for even trained experts to notice. The precision of CT scanning is similar to that of the AI tool, but CT costs much more and has other disadvantages, said Dr. Fleischer, who presented his findings at the virtual European Respiratory Society International Congress 2020.

“CT is more expensive and uses higher doses of radiation,” he said. “Another big thing is that not everyone has tomography facilities – including a lot of rural places and developing countries – so you need something that’s on the spot.”

With machine learning, Dr. Fleischer analyzed 2,300 x-ray images: 1,018 “normal” images from patients who had neither pneumonia nor COVID-19, 1,011 from patients with pneumonia, and 271 from patients with COVID-19.

The AI tool uses a neural network to refine the number and type of lung features being tracked. A UMAP (Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection) clustering algorithm then looks for similarities and differences in those images, he explained.

“We, as users, knew which type each x-ray was – normal, pneumonia positive, or COVID-19 positive – but the network did not,” he added.

Clinicians have observed two basic types of lung problems in COVID-19 patients: pneumonia that fills lung air sacs with fluid and dangerously low blood-oxygen levels despite nearly normal breathing patterns. Because treatment can vary according to type, it would be beneficial to quickly distinguish between them, Dr. Fleischer said.

The AI tool showed that there is a distinct difference in chest x-rays from pneumonia-positive patients and healthy people, he said. It also demonstrated two distinct clusters of COVID-19–positive chest x-rays: those that looked like pneumonia and those with a more normal presentation.

The fact that “the AI system recognizes something unique in chest x-rays from COVID-19–positive patients” indicates that the computer is able to identify visual markers for coronavirus, he explained. “We currently do not know what these markers are.”

Dr. Fleischer said his goal is not to replace physician decision-making, but to supplement it.

“I’m uncomfortable with having computers make the final decision,” he said. “They often have a narrow focus, whereas doctors have the big picture in mind.”

This AI tool is “very interesting,” especially in the context of expanding AI applications in various specialties, said Thierry Fumeaux, MD, from Nyon (Switzerland) Hospital. Some physicians currently disagree on whether a chest x-ray or CT scan is the better tool to help diagnose COVID-19.

“It seems better than the human eye and brain” to pinpoint COVID-19 lung damage, “so it’s very attractive as a technology,” Dr. Fumeaux said in an interview.

And AI can be used to supplement the efforts of busy and fatigued clinicians who might be stretched thin by large caseloads. “I cannot read 200 chest x-rays in a day, but a computer can do that in 2 minutes,” he said.

But Dr. Fumeaux offered a caveat: “Pattern recognition is promising, but at the moment I’m not aware of papers showing that, by using AI, you’re changing anything in the outcome of a patient.”

Ideally, Dr. Fleischer said he hopes that AI will soon be able to accurately indicate which treatments are most effective for individual COVID-19 patients. And the technology might eventually be used to help with treatment decisions for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

But he needs more data before results indicate whether a COVID-19 patient would benefit from ventilator support, for example, and the tool can be used more widely. To contribute data or collaborate with Dr. Fleischer’s efforts, contact him.

“Machine learning is all about data, so you can find these correlations,” he said. “It would be nice to be able to use it to reassure a worried patient that their prognosis is good; to say that most of the people with symptoms like yours will be just fine.”

Dr. Fleischer and Dr. Fumeaux have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intentional loss of a median of just 13% of body weight reduces the relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes by around 40% in people with obesity, among many other health benefits, shows a large real-world study in half a million adults.

Other findings associated with the same modest weight loss included a reduction in the risk of sleep apnea by 22%-27%, hypertension by 18%-25%, and dyslipidemia by 20%-22%.

Christiane Haase, PhD, of Novo Nordisk, led the work together with Nick Finer, MD, senior principal clinical scientist, Novo Nordisk.

“This is powerful evidence to say it is worthwhile to help people lose weight and that it is hugely beneficial. These are not small effects, and they show that weight loss has a huge impact on health. It’s extraordinary,” Dr. Finer asserted.

“These data show that if we treat obesity first, rather than the complications, we actually get big results in terms of health. This really should be a game-changer for those health care systems that are still prevaricating about treating obesity seriously,” he added.

The size of the study, of over 550,000 U.K. adults in primary care, makes it unique. In the real-world cohort, people who had lost 10%-25% of their body weight were followed for a mean 8 years to see how this affected their subsequent risk of obesity-related conditions. The results were presented during the virtual European and International Congress on Obesity.

“Weight loss was real-world without any artificial intervention and they experienced a real-life reduction in risk of various obesity-related conditions,” Dr. Haase said in an interview.

Carel Le Roux, MD, PhD, from the Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, welcomed the study because it showed those with obesity who maintained more than 10% weight loss experienced a significant reduction in the complications of obesity.

“In the study, intentional weight loss was achieved using mainly diets and exercise, but also some medications and surgical treatments. However, it did not matter how patients were able to maintain the 10% or more weight loss as regards the positive impact on complications of obesity,” he highlighted.

From a clinician standpoint, “it helps to consider all the weight-loss options available, but also for those who are not able to achieve weight-loss maintenance, to escalate treatment. This is now possible as we gain access to more effective treatments,” he added.

Also commenting on the findings, Matt Petersen, vice president of medical information and professional engagement at the American Diabetes Association, said: “It’s helpful to have further evidence that weight loss reduces risk for type 2 diabetes.”

However, “finding effective strategies to achieve and maintain long-term weight loss and maintenance remains a significant challenge,” he observed.
 

Large database of half a million people with obesity

For the research, anonymized data from over half a million patients documented in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which holds information from 674 general practices in the United Kingdom, were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and prescribing data to determine comorbidity outcomes.

At baseline, characteristics for the full study population included a median age of 54 years, around 50% of participants had hypertension, around 40% had dyslipidemia, and around 20% had type 2 diabetes. Less than 10% had sleep apnea, hip/knee osteoarthritis, or history of cardiovascular disease. All participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 25.0-50.0 kg/m² at the start of the follow-up, between January 2001 and December 2010.

Patients may have been advised to lose weight, or take more exercise, or have been referred to a dietitian. Some had been prescribed antiobesity medications available between 2001 and 2010. (Novo Nordisk medications for obesity were unavailable during this period.) Less than 1% had been referred for bariatric surgery.

“This is typical of real-world management of obesity,” Dr. Haase pointed out.

Participants were divided into two categories based on their weight pattern during the 4-year period: one whose weight remained stable (492,380 individuals with BMI change within –5% to 5%) and one who lost weight (60,573 with BMI change –10% to –25%).

The median change in BMI in the weight-loss group was –13%. The researchers also extracted information on weight loss interventions and dietary advice to confirm intention to lose weight.

The benefits of losing 13% of body weight were then determined for three risk profiles: BMI reduction from 34.5 to 30 (obesity class I level); from 40.3 to 35 (obesity class II level), and from46 to 40 (obesity class III level).

Individuals with a baseline history of any particular outcome were excluded from the risk analysis for that same outcome. All analyses were adjusted for BMI, age, gender, smoking status, and baseline comorbidities.

Study strengths include the large number of participants and the relatively long follow-up period. But the observational nature of the study limits the ability to know the ways in which the participants who lost weight may have differed from those who maintained or gained weight, the authors said.
 

Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea showed greatest risk reductions

The researchers looked at the risk reduction for various comorbidities after weight loss, compared with before weight loss. They also examined the risk reductions after weight loss, compared with someone who had always had a median 13% lower weight.

Effectively, the analysis provided a measure of the effect of risk reduction because of weight loss, compared with having that lower weight as a stable weight.

“The analysis asks if the person’s risk was reversed by the weight loss to the risk associated with that of the lower weight level,” explained Dr. Haase.

“We found that the risks of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension were reversed while the risk of sleep apnea and hip/knee osteoarthritis showed some residual risk,” she added.

With sleep apnea there was a risk reduction of up to 27%, compared with before weight loss.

“This is a condition that can’t be easily reversed except with mechanical sleeping devices and it is underrecognized and causes a lot of distress. There’s actually a link between sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension in a two-way connection,” noted Dr. Finer, who is also honorary professor of cardiovascular medicine at University College London.

“A reduction of this proportion is impressive,” he stressed.

Dyslipidemia, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes are well-known cardiovascular risk factors. “We did not see any impact on myocardial infarction,” which “might be due to length of follow-up,” noted Dr. Haase.
 

Response of type 2 diabetes to weight loss

Most patients in the study did not have type 2 diabetes at baseline, and Dr. Finer commented on how weight loss might affect type 2 diabetes risk.

“The complications of obesity resolve with weight loss at different speeds,” he said.

“Type 2 diabetes is very sensitive to weight loss and improvements are obvious in weeks to months.”

In contrast, reductions in risk of obstructive sleep apnea “take longer and might depend on the amount of weight lost.” And with osteoarthritis, “It’s hard to show improvement with weight loss because irreparable damage has [already] been done,” he explained.

The degree of improvement in diabetes because of weight loss is partly dependent on how long the person has had diabetes, Dr. Finer further explained. “If someone has less excess weight then the diabetes might have had a shorter duration and therefore response might be greater.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK, said: “We’ve known for a long time that carrying extra weight can increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and this new study adds to the extensive body of evidence showing that losing some of this weight is associated with reduced risk.”

She acknowledged, however, that losing weight is difficult and that support is important: “We need government to urgently review provision of weight management services and take action to address the barriers to accessing them.”

Dr. Finer and Dr. Haase are both employees of Novo Nordisk. Dr. Le Roux reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intentional loss of a median of just 13% of body weight reduces the relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes by around 40% in people with obesity, among many other health benefits, shows a large real-world study in half a million adults.

Other findings associated with the same modest weight loss included a reduction in the risk of sleep apnea by 22%-27%, hypertension by 18%-25%, and dyslipidemia by 20%-22%.

Christiane Haase, PhD, of Novo Nordisk, led the work together with Nick Finer, MD, senior principal clinical scientist, Novo Nordisk.

“This is powerful evidence to say it is worthwhile to help people lose weight and that it is hugely beneficial. These are not small effects, and they show that weight loss has a huge impact on health. It’s extraordinary,” Dr. Finer asserted.

“These data show that if we treat obesity first, rather than the complications, we actually get big results in terms of health. This really should be a game-changer for those health care systems that are still prevaricating about treating obesity seriously,” he added.

The size of the study, of over 550,000 U.K. adults in primary care, makes it unique. In the real-world cohort, people who had lost 10%-25% of their body weight were followed for a mean 8 years to see how this affected their subsequent risk of obesity-related conditions. The results were presented during the virtual European and International Congress on Obesity.

“Weight loss was real-world without any artificial intervention and they experienced a real-life reduction in risk of various obesity-related conditions,” Dr. Haase said in an interview.

Carel Le Roux, MD, PhD, from the Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, welcomed the study because it showed those with obesity who maintained more than 10% weight loss experienced a significant reduction in the complications of obesity.

“In the study, intentional weight loss was achieved using mainly diets and exercise, but also some medications and surgical treatments. However, it did not matter how patients were able to maintain the 10% or more weight loss as regards the positive impact on complications of obesity,” he highlighted.

From a clinician standpoint, “it helps to consider all the weight-loss options available, but also for those who are not able to achieve weight-loss maintenance, to escalate treatment. This is now possible as we gain access to more effective treatments,” he added.

Also commenting on the findings, Matt Petersen, vice president of medical information and professional engagement at the American Diabetes Association, said: “It’s helpful to have further evidence that weight loss reduces risk for type 2 diabetes.”

However, “finding effective strategies to achieve and maintain long-term weight loss and maintenance remains a significant challenge,” he observed.
 

Large database of half a million people with obesity

For the research, anonymized data from over half a million patients documented in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which holds information from 674 general practices in the United Kingdom, were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and prescribing data to determine comorbidity outcomes.

At baseline, characteristics for the full study population included a median age of 54 years, around 50% of participants had hypertension, around 40% had dyslipidemia, and around 20% had type 2 diabetes. Less than 10% had sleep apnea, hip/knee osteoarthritis, or history of cardiovascular disease. All participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 25.0-50.0 kg/m² at the start of the follow-up, between January 2001 and December 2010.

Patients may have been advised to lose weight, or take more exercise, or have been referred to a dietitian. Some had been prescribed antiobesity medications available between 2001 and 2010. (Novo Nordisk medications for obesity were unavailable during this period.) Less than 1% had been referred for bariatric surgery.

“This is typical of real-world management of obesity,” Dr. Haase pointed out.

Participants were divided into two categories based on their weight pattern during the 4-year period: one whose weight remained stable (492,380 individuals with BMI change within –5% to 5%) and one who lost weight (60,573 with BMI change –10% to –25%).

The median change in BMI in the weight-loss group was –13%. The researchers also extracted information on weight loss interventions and dietary advice to confirm intention to lose weight.

The benefits of losing 13% of body weight were then determined for three risk profiles: BMI reduction from 34.5 to 30 (obesity class I level); from 40.3 to 35 (obesity class II level), and from46 to 40 (obesity class III level).

Individuals with a baseline history of any particular outcome were excluded from the risk analysis for that same outcome. All analyses were adjusted for BMI, age, gender, smoking status, and baseline comorbidities.

Study strengths include the large number of participants and the relatively long follow-up period. But the observational nature of the study limits the ability to know the ways in which the participants who lost weight may have differed from those who maintained or gained weight, the authors said.
 

Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea showed greatest risk reductions

The researchers looked at the risk reduction for various comorbidities after weight loss, compared with before weight loss. They also examined the risk reductions after weight loss, compared with someone who had always had a median 13% lower weight.

Effectively, the analysis provided a measure of the effect of risk reduction because of weight loss, compared with having that lower weight as a stable weight.

“The analysis asks if the person’s risk was reversed by the weight loss to the risk associated with that of the lower weight level,” explained Dr. Haase.

“We found that the risks of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension were reversed while the risk of sleep apnea and hip/knee osteoarthritis showed some residual risk,” she added.

With sleep apnea there was a risk reduction of up to 27%, compared with before weight loss.

“This is a condition that can’t be easily reversed except with mechanical sleeping devices and it is underrecognized and causes a lot of distress. There’s actually a link between sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension in a two-way connection,” noted Dr. Finer, who is also honorary professor of cardiovascular medicine at University College London.

“A reduction of this proportion is impressive,” he stressed.

Dyslipidemia, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes are well-known cardiovascular risk factors. “We did not see any impact on myocardial infarction,” which “might be due to length of follow-up,” noted Dr. Haase.
 

Response of type 2 diabetes to weight loss

Most patients in the study did not have type 2 diabetes at baseline, and Dr. Finer commented on how weight loss might affect type 2 diabetes risk.

“The complications of obesity resolve with weight loss at different speeds,” he said.

“Type 2 diabetes is very sensitive to weight loss and improvements are obvious in weeks to months.”

In contrast, reductions in risk of obstructive sleep apnea “take longer and might depend on the amount of weight lost.” And with osteoarthritis, “It’s hard to show improvement with weight loss because irreparable damage has [already] been done,” he explained.

The degree of improvement in diabetes because of weight loss is partly dependent on how long the person has had diabetes, Dr. Finer further explained. “If someone has less excess weight then the diabetes might have had a shorter duration and therefore response might be greater.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK, said: “We’ve known for a long time that carrying extra weight can increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and this new study adds to the extensive body of evidence showing that losing some of this weight is associated with reduced risk.”

She acknowledged, however, that losing weight is difficult and that support is important: “We need government to urgently review provision of weight management services and take action to address the barriers to accessing them.”

Dr. Finer and Dr. Haase are both employees of Novo Nordisk. Dr. Le Roux reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intentional loss of a median of just 13% of body weight reduces the relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes by around 40% in people with obesity, among many other health benefits, shows a large real-world study in half a million adults.

Other findings associated with the same modest weight loss included a reduction in the risk of sleep apnea by 22%-27%, hypertension by 18%-25%, and dyslipidemia by 20%-22%.

Christiane Haase, PhD, of Novo Nordisk, led the work together with Nick Finer, MD, senior principal clinical scientist, Novo Nordisk.

“This is powerful evidence to say it is worthwhile to help people lose weight and that it is hugely beneficial. These are not small effects, and they show that weight loss has a huge impact on health. It’s extraordinary,” Dr. Finer asserted.

“These data show that if we treat obesity first, rather than the complications, we actually get big results in terms of health. This really should be a game-changer for those health care systems that are still prevaricating about treating obesity seriously,” he added.

The size of the study, of over 550,000 U.K. adults in primary care, makes it unique. In the real-world cohort, people who had lost 10%-25% of their body weight were followed for a mean 8 years to see how this affected their subsequent risk of obesity-related conditions. The results were presented during the virtual European and International Congress on Obesity.

“Weight loss was real-world without any artificial intervention and they experienced a real-life reduction in risk of various obesity-related conditions,” Dr. Haase said in an interview.

Carel Le Roux, MD, PhD, from the Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, welcomed the study because it showed those with obesity who maintained more than 10% weight loss experienced a significant reduction in the complications of obesity.

“In the study, intentional weight loss was achieved using mainly diets and exercise, but also some medications and surgical treatments. However, it did not matter how patients were able to maintain the 10% or more weight loss as regards the positive impact on complications of obesity,” he highlighted.

From a clinician standpoint, “it helps to consider all the weight-loss options available, but also for those who are not able to achieve weight-loss maintenance, to escalate treatment. This is now possible as we gain access to more effective treatments,” he added.

Also commenting on the findings, Matt Petersen, vice president of medical information and professional engagement at the American Diabetes Association, said: “It’s helpful to have further evidence that weight loss reduces risk for type 2 diabetes.”

However, “finding effective strategies to achieve and maintain long-term weight loss and maintenance remains a significant challenge,” he observed.
 

Large database of half a million people with obesity

For the research, anonymized data from over half a million patients documented in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database, which holds information from 674 general practices in the United Kingdom, were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and prescribing data to determine comorbidity outcomes.

At baseline, characteristics for the full study population included a median age of 54 years, around 50% of participants had hypertension, around 40% had dyslipidemia, and around 20% had type 2 diabetes. Less than 10% had sleep apnea, hip/knee osteoarthritis, or history of cardiovascular disease. All participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 25.0-50.0 kg/m² at the start of the follow-up, between January 2001 and December 2010.

Patients may have been advised to lose weight, or take more exercise, or have been referred to a dietitian. Some had been prescribed antiobesity medications available between 2001 and 2010. (Novo Nordisk medications for obesity were unavailable during this period.) Less than 1% had been referred for bariatric surgery.

“This is typical of real-world management of obesity,” Dr. Haase pointed out.

Participants were divided into two categories based on their weight pattern during the 4-year period: one whose weight remained stable (492,380 individuals with BMI change within –5% to 5%) and one who lost weight (60,573 with BMI change –10% to –25%).

The median change in BMI in the weight-loss group was –13%. The researchers also extracted information on weight loss interventions and dietary advice to confirm intention to lose weight.

The benefits of losing 13% of body weight were then determined for three risk profiles: BMI reduction from 34.5 to 30 (obesity class I level); from 40.3 to 35 (obesity class II level), and from46 to 40 (obesity class III level).

Individuals with a baseline history of any particular outcome were excluded from the risk analysis for that same outcome. All analyses were adjusted for BMI, age, gender, smoking status, and baseline comorbidities.

Study strengths include the large number of participants and the relatively long follow-up period. But the observational nature of the study limits the ability to know the ways in which the participants who lost weight may have differed from those who maintained or gained weight, the authors said.
 

Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea showed greatest risk reductions

The researchers looked at the risk reduction for various comorbidities after weight loss, compared with before weight loss. They also examined the risk reductions after weight loss, compared with someone who had always had a median 13% lower weight.

Effectively, the analysis provided a measure of the effect of risk reduction because of weight loss, compared with having that lower weight as a stable weight.

“The analysis asks if the person’s risk was reversed by the weight loss to the risk associated with that of the lower weight level,” explained Dr. Haase.

“We found that the risks of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension were reversed while the risk of sleep apnea and hip/knee osteoarthritis showed some residual risk,” she added.

With sleep apnea there was a risk reduction of up to 27%, compared with before weight loss.

“This is a condition that can’t be easily reversed except with mechanical sleeping devices and it is underrecognized and causes a lot of distress. There’s actually a link between sleep apnea, diabetes, and hypertension in a two-way connection,” noted Dr. Finer, who is also honorary professor of cardiovascular medicine at University College London.

“A reduction of this proportion is impressive,” he stressed.

Dyslipidemia, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes are well-known cardiovascular risk factors. “We did not see any impact on myocardial infarction,” which “might be due to length of follow-up,” noted Dr. Haase.
 

Response of type 2 diabetes to weight loss

Most patients in the study did not have type 2 diabetes at baseline, and Dr. Finer commented on how weight loss might affect type 2 diabetes risk.

“The complications of obesity resolve with weight loss at different speeds,” he said.

“Type 2 diabetes is very sensitive to weight loss and improvements are obvious in weeks to months.”

In contrast, reductions in risk of obstructive sleep apnea “take longer and might depend on the amount of weight lost.” And with osteoarthritis, “It’s hard to show improvement with weight loss because irreparable damage has [already] been done,” he explained.

The degree of improvement in diabetes because of weight loss is partly dependent on how long the person has had diabetes, Dr. Finer further explained. “If someone has less excess weight then the diabetes might have had a shorter duration and therefore response might be greater.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK, said: “We’ve known for a long time that carrying extra weight can increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and this new study adds to the extensive body of evidence showing that losing some of this weight is associated with reduced risk.”

She acknowledged, however, that losing weight is difficult and that support is important: “We need government to urgently review provision of weight management services and take action to address the barriers to accessing them.”

Dr. Finer and Dr. Haase are both employees of Novo Nordisk. Dr. Le Roux reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across all 7 continents, including 185 countries, and infected more than 21.9 million individuals worldwide as of August 18, 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. It has strained our health care system and affected all specialties, including dermatology. Dermatologists have taken important safety measures by canceling/deferring elective and nonemergency procedures and diagnosing/treating patients via telemedicine. Many residents and attending dermatologists have volunteered to care for COVID-19 inpatients and donated personal protective equipment (PPE) to hospitals reporting shortages.¹ As we prepare to treat increasing numbers of in-office patients, there will be a critical need for PPE. We highlight the use of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and printing technologies as it applies to the dermatology outpatient setting.

N95 masks are necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic because they effectively filter at least 95% of 0.3-μm airborne particles and provide adequate face seals.¹ 3-Dimensional imaging integrated with 3D printers can be used to scan precise facial parameters (eg, jawline, nose) and account for facial hair density and length to produce comfortable tailored N95 masks and face seals.^1,2 3-Dimensional printing utilizes robotics and computer-aided design systems to layer and deposit biomaterials, thereby creating cost-effective, customizable, mechanically stable, and biocompatible constructs.^1,3 An ideal 3D-printed N95 mask would be printed via fused deposition modeling, consisting of a combination of lightweight and fatigue-resistant biomaterials, including electrostatic nonwoven polypropylene and styrene-(ethylene-butylene)-styrene.^1,4 The resulting masks, made from industrial-grade raw materials, are practical alternatives for dermatology practices with insufficient supplies.

Face shields offer an additional layer of safety for the face and mucosae and also may provide longevity for N95 masks. Using synthetic polymers such as polycarbonate and polyethylene, 3D printers can be used to construct face shields via fused deposition modeling.¹ These face shields may be worn over N95 masks and then can be sanitized and reused.

Mohs surgeons and staff may be at particularly high risk for COVID-19 infection due to their close proximity to the face during surgery, use of cautery, and prolonged time spent with patients while taking layers and suturing. Multispectral optoacoustic tomography is a noninvasive imaging tool that can map skin tumors via optical contrast with accuracy comparable to histologic measurements.⁵ 3-Dimensional facial imaging and printing can be used to calculate tumor surface area for customized masks, leaving sufficient skin for excision and reconstruction. Patient face coverings would cover the nose and mouth, only expose relevant areas near the excision site, and include adjustable/removable ear loops for tumors localized to the ears. A schematic of how 3D technologies can be applied for Mohs micrographic surgery is provided in the Figure.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across all 7 continents, including 185 countries, and infected more than 21.9 million individuals worldwide as of August 18, 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. It has strained our health care system and affected all specialties, including dermatology. Dermatologists have taken important safety measures by canceling/deferring elective and nonemergency procedures and diagnosing/treating patients via telemedicine. Many residents and attending dermatologists have volunteered to care for COVID-19 inpatients and donated personal protective equipment (PPE) to hospitals reporting shortages.¹ As we prepare to treat increasing numbers of in-office patients, there will be a critical need for PPE. We highlight the use of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and printing technologies as it applies to the dermatology outpatient setting.

N95 masks are necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic because they effectively filter at least 95% of 0.3-μm airborne particles and provide adequate face seals.¹ 3-Dimensional imaging integrated with 3D printers can be used to scan precise facial parameters (eg, jawline, nose) and account for facial hair density and length to produce comfortable tailored N95 masks and face seals.^1,2 3-Dimensional printing utilizes robotics and computer-aided design systems to layer and deposit biomaterials, thereby creating cost-effective, customizable, mechanically stable, and biocompatible constructs.^1,3 An ideal 3D-printed N95 mask would be printed via fused deposition modeling, consisting of a combination of lightweight and fatigue-resistant biomaterials, including electrostatic nonwoven polypropylene and styrene-(ethylene-butylene)-styrene.^1,4 The resulting masks, made from industrial-grade raw materials, are practical alternatives for dermatology practices with insufficient supplies.

Face shields offer an additional layer of safety for the face and mucosae and also may provide longevity for N95 masks. Using synthetic polymers such as polycarbonate and polyethylene, 3D printers can be used to construct face shields via fused deposition modeling.¹ These face shields may be worn over N95 masks and then can be sanitized and reused.

Mohs surgeons and staff may be at particularly high risk for COVID-19 infection due to their close proximity to the face during surgery, use of cautery, and prolonged time spent with patients while taking layers and suturing. Multispectral optoacoustic tomography is a noninvasive imaging tool that can map skin tumors via optical contrast with accuracy comparable to histologic measurements.⁵ 3-Dimensional facial imaging and printing can be used to calculate tumor surface area for customized masks, leaving sufficient skin for excision and reconstruction. Patient face coverings would cover the nose and mouth, only expose relevant areas near the excision site, and include adjustable/removable ear loops for tumors localized to the ears. A schematic of how 3D technologies can be applied for Mohs micrographic surgery is provided in the Figure.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across all 7 continents, including 185 countries, and infected more than 21.9 million individuals worldwide as of August 18, 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. It has strained our health care system and affected all specialties, including dermatology. Dermatologists have taken important safety measures by canceling/deferring elective and nonemergency procedures and diagnosing/treating patients via telemedicine. Many residents and attending dermatologists have volunteered to care for COVID-19 inpatients and donated personal protective equipment (PPE) to hospitals reporting shortages.¹ As we prepare to treat increasing numbers of in-office patients, there will be a critical need for PPE. We highlight the use of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and printing technologies as it applies to the dermatology outpatient setting.

N95 masks are necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic because they effectively filter at least 95% of 0.3-μm airborne particles and provide adequate face seals.¹ 3-Dimensional imaging integrated with 3D printers can be used to scan precise facial parameters (eg, jawline, nose) and account for facial hair density and length to produce comfortable tailored N95 masks and face seals.^1,2 3-Dimensional printing utilizes robotics and computer-aided design systems to layer and deposit biomaterials, thereby creating cost-effective, customizable, mechanically stable, and biocompatible constructs.^1,3 An ideal 3D-printed N95 mask would be printed via fused deposition modeling, consisting of a combination of lightweight and fatigue-resistant biomaterials, including electrostatic nonwoven polypropylene and styrene-(ethylene-butylene)-styrene.^1,4 The resulting masks, made from industrial-grade raw materials, are practical alternatives for dermatology practices with insufficient supplies.

Face shields offer an additional layer of safety for the face and mucosae and also may provide longevity for N95 masks. Using synthetic polymers such as polycarbonate and polyethylene, 3D printers can be used to construct face shields via fused deposition modeling.¹ These face shields may be worn over N95 masks and then can be sanitized and reused.

Mohs surgeons and staff may be at particularly high risk for COVID-19 infection due to their close proximity to the face during surgery, use of cautery, and prolonged time spent with patients while taking layers and suturing. Multispectral optoacoustic tomography is a noninvasive imaging tool that can map skin tumors via optical contrast with accuracy comparable to histologic measurements.⁵ 3-Dimensional facial imaging and printing can be used to calculate tumor surface area for customized masks, leaving sufficient skin for excision and reconstruction. Patient face coverings would cover the nose and mouth, only expose relevant areas near the excision site, and include adjustable/removable ear loops for tumors localized to the ears. A schematic of how 3D technologies can be applied for Mohs micrographic surgery is provided in the Figure.