Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are associated with an increased risk of committing a violent crime, an effect that may linger up to 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation, new research suggests. However, investigators say the finding should be interpreted with caution.

A large population-based study of more than 800,000 individuals showed those taking these antidepressants had an overall 2.7% increased risk of committing a violent crime while on the medications compared with when they were not taking them.

The increased risk persisted up to 12 weeks after discontinuing SSRIs and then returned to pretreatment levels. The risk was highest in younger individuals and those with a history of a prior violent crime.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution [because] we do not know how far the association between SSRI medication and violent crime reflect causation,” lead author Tyra Lagerberg, MSc, a PhD candidate at Karolinska Institute, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Our findings should not be used as grounds for individuals to go off their [SSRI] medication or for clinicians to withhold medication from those who might benefit from it,” Ms. Lagerberg said.

The study was published online May 29 in European Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Previous concerns

There has been “apprehension” about a possible association between SSRIs and elevated risk of aggression and violence, especially in young people, but it “remains unclear” if there is a similar risk in middle-aged and older adults, the authors noted. Moreover, it is unclear whether the risk of violence varies with time after initiating and discontinuing SSRI treatment.

To assess how the risk of violent crime might vary by age and time after SSRI treatment initiation and discontinuation, the researchers calculated absolute rates of violent crime per 1000 person-years during on- and off-treatment periods and also conducted within-group analyses.

The cohort, which was derived from several Swedish national registers, included all individuals in Sweden prescribed an SSRI between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2013 (n = 785,337, 64.2% female) over an average follow-up of 7.3 years.

Some of the covariates used in the analyses included age, recent or previous violent crime, use of non-SSRI medications, sex, family income, education, county of residence, birth country, and lifetime diagnoses.
 

“Rare” effect

Almost the entire study cohort (99%) changed their SSRI treatment over the follow-up period. During this time, of the full study cohort, 2.7% committed violent crimes (21,203 crimes in 5,707,293 person-years).

More men than women were convicted of a violent crime (5.7% vs 1.0%, respectively).

Absolute rates of violent crime were lower in treated versus nontreated periods across all age categories (other than those between 15 and 24 years) when covariates were not taken into account.

However, when hazards during the on- and off-treatment periods were compared and adjusted for covariables, SSRI treatment was associated with a “modest increased” risk of violent crime (HR, 1.10) – particularly in those ages 15-25 years and ages 25–34 years (HR, 1.19 and 1.16, respectively).

Moreover, further analysis stratifying the cohort according to previous violent crime revealed that the elevated risk for violent crime convictions “seemed to be confined to the individuals with previous criminality,” compared to those with no criminal history (HR, 1.13 vs. 1.07).

The within-individual analysis included 2.6% of the overall cohort who experienced SSRI treatment switching as well as ≥1 violent event.

These individuals differed from the overall cohort in that they tended to be younger (close to half were aged 15-24 years compared with one quarter in the overall cohort) and predominantly male (77% vs. 36%, respectively).

When the hazard of violent crime was compared between individuals’ periods on and off medication, there was a significantly increased hazard during treatment in the whole cohort (HR, 1.26), but in particular, in those aged 25-34 years and 35-44 years (HR, 1.35 and 1.15, respectively).

The within-individual HRs remained elevated for up to 12 weeks post discontinuation of the SSRI (HR, 1.37 during the first 28 days; HR, 1.20 during days 29-84). Although women had a significantly elevated on-treatment hazard in the youngest age category, they had a lower incidence of crime across ages.

Treatment with benzodiazepines was associated with a significantly higher hazard of violent crime and treatment with non-SSRI antidepressants was associated with a “modest but nonsignificantly elevated” hazard.

By contrast, treatment with other psychotropic drugs was not associated with elevated risk.
 

Warn patients

Commenting on the study, Eduard Vieta, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, Institute of Neuroscience, University of Barcelona, Spain, and author of an accompanying editorial, said it’s still not known if the mediating factor in the increased risk of violent crime was the SSRI or the underlying mental condition that prompted the prescription.

Dr. Vieta, who was not involved with the study, added that the results “raise a note of caution in terms of making a very accurate diagnosis and treatment in patients with a history of conviction, violence, or criminality, and opting ideally for psychosocial therapies whenever possible in this population.”

Also commenting on the study, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are “not easy to brush away or explain away.”

Dr. Thase, who was not involved with the study, continued, “although it is a small finding, it is also a serious problem.”

He suggested the risk should be treated in a similar way to the risk for suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

“Just as you might caution patients [initiating treatment with SSRIs] regarding that risk, you might broaden your counsel to include other types of violent behavior because the same process that provokes the risk of self-harm for a given person may be externalized and provoke harm or violence toward others.”

Ms. Lagerberg added that further research is needed to confirm their findings and “inform whether – and if so, how – clinical practice should change.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Horizon 2020 ACTION project, Stockholm County Council, and Thurings Foundation. Ms. Lagerberg has reported no relevant financial relationships. Other author disclosures are listed in the article. Dr. Vieta and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Thase has reported consulting with and receiving research funding from many of the companies that manufacture/sell antidepressants.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are associated with an increased risk of committing a violent crime, an effect that may linger up to 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation, new research suggests. However, investigators say the finding should be interpreted with caution.

A large population-based study of more than 800,000 individuals showed those taking these antidepressants had an overall 2.7% increased risk of committing a violent crime while on the medications compared with when they were not taking them.

The increased risk persisted up to 12 weeks after discontinuing SSRIs and then returned to pretreatment levels. The risk was highest in younger individuals and those with a history of a prior violent crime.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution [because] we do not know how far the association between SSRI medication and violent crime reflect causation,” lead author Tyra Lagerberg, MSc, a PhD candidate at Karolinska Institute, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Our findings should not be used as grounds for individuals to go off their [SSRI] medication or for clinicians to withhold medication from those who might benefit from it,” Ms. Lagerberg said.

The study was published online May 29 in European Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Previous concerns

There has been “apprehension” about a possible association between SSRIs and elevated risk of aggression and violence, especially in young people, but it “remains unclear” if there is a similar risk in middle-aged and older adults, the authors noted. Moreover, it is unclear whether the risk of violence varies with time after initiating and discontinuing SSRI treatment.

To assess how the risk of violent crime might vary by age and time after SSRI treatment initiation and discontinuation, the researchers calculated absolute rates of violent crime per 1000 person-years during on- and off-treatment periods and also conducted within-group analyses.

The cohort, which was derived from several Swedish national registers, included all individuals in Sweden prescribed an SSRI between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2013 (n = 785,337, 64.2% female) over an average follow-up of 7.3 years.

Some of the covariates used in the analyses included age, recent or previous violent crime, use of non-SSRI medications, sex, family income, education, county of residence, birth country, and lifetime diagnoses.
 

“Rare” effect

Almost the entire study cohort (99%) changed their SSRI treatment over the follow-up period. During this time, of the full study cohort, 2.7% committed violent crimes (21,203 crimes in 5,707,293 person-years).

More men than women were convicted of a violent crime (5.7% vs 1.0%, respectively).

Absolute rates of violent crime were lower in treated versus nontreated periods across all age categories (other than those between 15 and 24 years) when covariates were not taken into account.

However, when hazards during the on- and off-treatment periods were compared and adjusted for covariables, SSRI treatment was associated with a “modest increased” risk of violent crime (HR, 1.10) – particularly in those ages 15-25 years and ages 25–34 years (HR, 1.19 and 1.16, respectively).

Moreover, further analysis stratifying the cohort according to previous violent crime revealed that the elevated risk for violent crime convictions “seemed to be confined to the individuals with previous criminality,” compared to those with no criminal history (HR, 1.13 vs. 1.07).

The within-individual analysis included 2.6% of the overall cohort who experienced SSRI treatment switching as well as ≥1 violent event.

These individuals differed from the overall cohort in that they tended to be younger (close to half were aged 15-24 years compared with one quarter in the overall cohort) and predominantly male (77% vs. 36%, respectively).

When the hazard of violent crime was compared between individuals’ periods on and off medication, there was a significantly increased hazard during treatment in the whole cohort (HR, 1.26), but in particular, in those aged 25-34 years and 35-44 years (HR, 1.35 and 1.15, respectively).

The within-individual HRs remained elevated for up to 12 weeks post discontinuation of the SSRI (HR, 1.37 during the first 28 days; HR, 1.20 during days 29-84). Although women had a significantly elevated on-treatment hazard in the youngest age category, they had a lower incidence of crime across ages.

Treatment with benzodiazepines was associated with a significantly higher hazard of violent crime and treatment with non-SSRI antidepressants was associated with a “modest but nonsignificantly elevated” hazard.

By contrast, treatment with other psychotropic drugs was not associated with elevated risk.
 

Warn patients

Commenting on the study, Eduard Vieta, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, Institute of Neuroscience, University of Barcelona, Spain, and author of an accompanying editorial, said it’s still not known if the mediating factor in the increased risk of violent crime was the SSRI or the underlying mental condition that prompted the prescription.

Dr. Vieta, who was not involved with the study, added that the results “raise a note of caution in terms of making a very accurate diagnosis and treatment in patients with a history of conviction, violence, or criminality, and opting ideally for psychosocial therapies whenever possible in this population.”

Also commenting on the study, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are “not easy to brush away or explain away.”

Dr. Thase, who was not involved with the study, continued, “although it is a small finding, it is also a serious problem.”

He suggested the risk should be treated in a similar way to the risk for suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

“Just as you might caution patients [initiating treatment with SSRIs] regarding that risk, you might broaden your counsel to include other types of violent behavior because the same process that provokes the risk of self-harm for a given person may be externalized and provoke harm or violence toward others.”

Ms. Lagerberg added that further research is needed to confirm their findings and “inform whether – and if so, how – clinical practice should change.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Horizon 2020 ACTION project, Stockholm County Council, and Thurings Foundation. Ms. Lagerberg has reported no relevant financial relationships. Other author disclosures are listed in the article. Dr. Vieta and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Thase has reported consulting with and receiving research funding from many of the companies that manufacture/sell antidepressants.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are associated with an increased risk of committing a violent crime, an effect that may linger up to 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation, new research suggests. However, investigators say the finding should be interpreted with caution.

A large population-based study of more than 800,000 individuals showed those taking these antidepressants had an overall 2.7% increased risk of committing a violent crime while on the medications compared with when they were not taking them.

The increased risk persisted up to 12 weeks after discontinuing SSRIs and then returned to pretreatment levels. The risk was highest in younger individuals and those with a history of a prior violent crime.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution [because] we do not know how far the association between SSRI medication and violent crime reflect causation,” lead author Tyra Lagerberg, MSc, a PhD candidate at Karolinska Institute, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Our findings should not be used as grounds for individuals to go off their [SSRI] medication or for clinicians to withhold medication from those who might benefit from it,” Ms. Lagerberg said.

The study was published online May 29 in European Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Previous concerns

There has been “apprehension” about a possible association between SSRIs and elevated risk of aggression and violence, especially in young people, but it “remains unclear” if there is a similar risk in middle-aged and older adults, the authors noted. Moreover, it is unclear whether the risk of violence varies with time after initiating and discontinuing SSRI treatment.

To assess how the risk of violent crime might vary by age and time after SSRI treatment initiation and discontinuation, the researchers calculated absolute rates of violent crime per 1000 person-years during on- and off-treatment periods and also conducted within-group analyses.

The cohort, which was derived from several Swedish national registers, included all individuals in Sweden prescribed an SSRI between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2013 (n = 785,337, 64.2% female) over an average follow-up of 7.3 years.

Some of the covariates used in the analyses included age, recent or previous violent crime, use of non-SSRI medications, sex, family income, education, county of residence, birth country, and lifetime diagnoses.
 

“Rare” effect

Almost the entire study cohort (99%) changed their SSRI treatment over the follow-up period. During this time, of the full study cohort, 2.7% committed violent crimes (21,203 crimes in 5,707,293 person-years).

More men than women were convicted of a violent crime (5.7% vs 1.0%, respectively).

Absolute rates of violent crime were lower in treated versus nontreated periods across all age categories (other than those between 15 and 24 years) when covariates were not taken into account.

However, when hazards during the on- and off-treatment periods were compared and adjusted for covariables, SSRI treatment was associated with a “modest increased” risk of violent crime (HR, 1.10) – particularly in those ages 15-25 years and ages 25–34 years (HR, 1.19 and 1.16, respectively).

Moreover, further analysis stratifying the cohort according to previous violent crime revealed that the elevated risk for violent crime convictions “seemed to be confined to the individuals with previous criminality,” compared to those with no criminal history (HR, 1.13 vs. 1.07).

The within-individual analysis included 2.6% of the overall cohort who experienced SSRI treatment switching as well as ≥1 violent event.

These individuals differed from the overall cohort in that they tended to be younger (close to half were aged 15-24 years compared with one quarter in the overall cohort) and predominantly male (77% vs. 36%, respectively).

When the hazard of violent crime was compared between individuals’ periods on and off medication, there was a significantly increased hazard during treatment in the whole cohort (HR, 1.26), but in particular, in those aged 25-34 years and 35-44 years (HR, 1.35 and 1.15, respectively).

The within-individual HRs remained elevated for up to 12 weeks post discontinuation of the SSRI (HR, 1.37 during the first 28 days; HR, 1.20 during days 29-84). Although women had a significantly elevated on-treatment hazard in the youngest age category, they had a lower incidence of crime across ages.

Treatment with benzodiazepines was associated with a significantly higher hazard of violent crime and treatment with non-SSRI antidepressants was associated with a “modest but nonsignificantly elevated” hazard.

By contrast, treatment with other psychotropic drugs was not associated with elevated risk.
 

Warn patients

Commenting on the study, Eduard Vieta, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, Institute of Neuroscience, University of Barcelona, Spain, and author of an accompanying editorial, said it’s still not known if the mediating factor in the increased risk of violent crime was the SSRI or the underlying mental condition that prompted the prescription.

Dr. Vieta, who was not involved with the study, added that the results “raise a note of caution in terms of making a very accurate diagnosis and treatment in patients with a history of conviction, violence, or criminality, and opting ideally for psychosocial therapies whenever possible in this population.”

Also commenting on the study, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are “not easy to brush away or explain away.”

Dr. Thase, who was not involved with the study, continued, “although it is a small finding, it is also a serious problem.”

He suggested the risk should be treated in a similar way to the risk for suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

“Just as you might caution patients [initiating treatment with SSRIs] regarding that risk, you might broaden your counsel to include other types of violent behavior because the same process that provokes the risk of self-harm for a given person may be externalized and provoke harm or violence toward others.”

Ms. Lagerberg added that further research is needed to confirm their findings and “inform whether – and if so, how – clinical practice should change.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Horizon 2020 ACTION project, Stockholm County Council, and Thurings Foundation. Ms. Lagerberg has reported no relevant financial relationships. Other author disclosures are listed in the article. Dr. Vieta and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Thase has reported consulting with and receiving research funding from many of the companies that manufacture/sell antidepressants.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new clinical guidance documents from the American College of Rheumatology provide evidence-based recommendations for managing pediatric rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as diagnostic and treatment recommendations for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19 infection.

Although several children’s hospitals have published their treatment protocols for MIS-C since the condition’s initial discovery, the ACR appears to be the first medical organization to review all the most current evidence to issue interim guidance with the expectations that it will change as more data become available.

“It is challenging having to make recommendations not having a lot of scientific evidence, but we still felt we had to use whatever’s out there to the best of our ability and use our experience to put together these recommendations,” Dawn M. Wahezi, MD, chief of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“We wanted to be mindful of the fact that there are things we know and things we don’t know, and we have to be careful about what we’re recommending,” said Dr. Wahezi, a member of the ACR working group that assembled the recommendations for pediatric rheumatic disease management during the pandemic. “We’re recommending the best we can at this moment, but if there are new studies that come out and suggest otherwise, we will definitely have to go back and amend the document.”

The foremost priority of the pediatric rheumatic disease guidance focuses on maintaining control of the disease and avoiding flares that may put children at greater risk of infection. Dr. Wahezi said the ACR has received many calls from patients and clinicians asking whether patients should continue their immunosuppressant medications. Fear of the coronavirus infection, medication shortages, difficulty getting to the pharmacy, uneasiness about going to the clinic or hospital for infusions, and other barriers may have led to gaps in medication.

“We didn’t want people to be too quick to hold patients’ medications just because they were scared of COVID,” Dr. Wahezi said. “If they did have medication stopped for one reason or another and their disease flared, having active disease, regardless of which disease it is, actually puts you at higher risk for infection. By controlling their disease, that would be the way to protect them the most.”

A key takeaway in the guidance on MIS-C, meanwhile, is an emphasis on its rarity lest physicians be too quick to diagnose it and miss another serious condition with overlapping symptoms, explained Lauren Henderson, MD, an attending rheumatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Henderson participated in the ACR group that wrote the MIS-C guidance.

“The first thing we want to be thoughtful about clinically is to recognize that children in general with the acute infectious phase of SARS-CoV-2 have mild symptoms and generally do well,” Dr. Henderson said. “From what we can tell from all the data, MIS-C is rare. That really needs to be considered when clinicians on the ground are doing the diagnostic evaluation” because of concerns that clinicians “could rush to diagnose and treat patients with MIS-C and miss important diagnoses like malignancies and infections.”

Management of pediatric rheumatic disease during the pandemic

The COVID-19 clinical guidance for managing pediatric rheumatic disease grew from the work of the North American Pediatric Rheumatology Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included seven pediatric rheumatologists, two pediatric infectious disease physicians, one adult rheumatologist, and one pediatric nurse practitioner. The general guidance covers usual preventive measures for reducing risk for COVID-19 infection, the recommendation that children continue to receive recommended vaccines unless contraindicated by medication, and routine in-person visits for ophthalmologic surveillance of those with a history of uveitis or at high risk for chronic uveitis. The guidance also notes the risk of mental health concerns, such as depression and anxiety, related to quarantine and the pandemic.

The top recommendation is initiation or continuation of all medications necessary to control underlying disease, including NSAIDs, hydroxychloroquine, ACE inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, colchicine, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Even patients who may have had exposure to COVID-19 or who have an asymptomatic COVID-19 infection should continue to take these medications with the exception of ACEi/ARBs.

In those with pediatric rheumatic disease who have a symptomatic COVID-19 infection, “NSAIDs, HCQ, and colchicine may be continued, if necessary, to control underlying disease,” as can interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 inhibitors, but “cDMARDs, bDMARDs [except IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors] and tsDMARDs should be temporarily delayed or withheld,” according to the guidance. Glucocorticoids can be continued at the lowest possible dose to control disease.

“There’s nothing in the literature that suggests people who have rheumatic disease, especially children, and people who are on these medications, really are at increased risk for COVID-19,” Dr. Wahezi said. “That’s why we didn’t want people to be overcautious in stopping medications when the main priority is to control their disease.”

She noted some experts’ speculations that these medications may actually benefit patients with rheumatic disease who develop a COVID-19 infection because the medications keep the immune response in check. “If you allow them to have this dysregulated immune response and have active disease, you’re potentially putting them at greater risk,” Dr. Wahezi said, although she stressed that inadequate evidence exists to support these speculations right now.

Lack of evidence has been the biggest challenge all around with developing this guidance, she said.

“Because this is such an unprecedented situation and because people are so desperate to find treatments both for the illness and to protect those at risk for it, there are lots of people trying to put evidence out there, but it may not be the best-quality evidence,” Dr. Wahezi said.

Insufficient evidence also drove the group’s determination that “SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is not useful in informing on the history of infection or risk of reinfection,” as the guidance states. Too much variability in the assays exist, Dr. Wahezi said, and, further, it’s unclear what the clinical significance of a positive test would be.

“We didn’t want anyone to feel they had to make clinical decisions based on the results of that antibody testing,” she said. “Even if the test is accurate, we don’t know how to interpret it because it’s so new.”

The guidance also notes that patients with stable disease and previously stable lab markers on stable doses of their medication may be able to extend the interval for medication toxicity lab testing a few months if there is concern about exposure to COVID-19 to get the blood work.

“If you’re just starting a medicine or there’s someone who’s had abnormalities with the medicine in the past or you’re making medication adjustments, you wouldn’t do it in those scenarios, but if there’s someone who’s been on the drug for a long time and are nervous to get [blood] drawn, it’s probably okay to delay it,” Dr. Wahezi said. Lab work for disease activity measures, on the other hand, remain particularly important, especially since telemedicine visits may require clinicians to rely on lab results more than previously.

Management of MIS-C associated with COVID-19

The task force that developed guidance for the new inflammatory condition recently linked to SARS-CoV-2 infections in children included nine pediatric rheumatologists, two adult rheumatologists, two pediatric cardiologists, two pediatric infectious disease specialists, and one pediatric critical care physician.

The guidance includes a figure for the diagnostic pathway in evaluating children suspected of having MIS-C and extensive detail on diagnostic work-up, but the task force intentionally avoided providing a case definition for the condition. Existing case definitions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health differ from one another and are based on unclear evidence, Dr. Henderson noted. “We really don’t have enough data to know the sensitivity and specificity of each parameter, and until that’s available, we didn’t want to add to the confusion,” she said.

The guidance also stresses that MIS-C is a rare complication, so patients suspected of having the condition who do not have “life-threatening manifestations should undergo diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C as well as other possible infectious and noninfectious etiologies before immunomodulatory treatment is initiated,” the guidance states.

Unless a child is in shock or otherwise requires urgent care, physicians should take the time to complete the diagnostic work-up while monitoring the child, Dr. Henderson said. If the child does have MIS-C, the guidance currently recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and/or glucocorticoids to prevent coronary artery aneurysms, the same treatment other institutions have been recommending.

“We don’t have rigorous comparative studies looking at different types of treatments,” Dr. Henderson said, noting that the vast majority of children in the literature received IVIG and/or glucocorticoid treatment. “Often children really responded quite forcefully to those treatments, but we don’t have high-quality data yet to know that this treatment is better than supportive care or another medication.”

Dr. Henderson also stressed the importance of children receiving care at a facility with the necessary expertise to manage MIS-C and receiving long-term follow-up care from a multidisciplinary clinical team that includes a rheumatologist, an infectious disease doctor, a cardiologist, and possibly a hematologist.

“Making sure children are admitted to a hospital that has the resources and are followed by physicians with expertise or understanding of the intricacies of MIS-C is really important,” she said, particularly for children with cardiac involvement. “We don’t know if all the kids presenting with left ventricular dysfunction and shock are at risk for having myocardial fibrosis down the line,” she noted. “There is so much we do not understand and very little data to guide us on what to do, so these children really need to be under the care of a cardiologist and rheumatologist to make sure that their care is tailored to them.”

Although MIS-C shares overlapping symptoms with Kawasaki disease, it’s still unclear how similar or different the two conditions are, Dr. Henderson said.

“We can definitely say that when we look at MIS-C and compare it to historical groups of Kawasaki disease before the pandemic, there are definitely different features in the MIS-C group,” she said. Kawasaki disease generally only affects children under age 5, whereas MIS-C patients run the gamut from age 1-17. Racial demographics are also different, with a higher proportion of black children affected by MIS-C.

It’s possible that the pathophysiology of both conditions will turn out to be similar, particularly given the hypothesis that Kawasaki disease is triggered by infections in genetically predisposed people. However, the severity of symptoms and risk of aneurysms appear greater with MIS-C so far.

“The degree to which these patients are presenting with left ventricular dysfunction and shock is much higher than what we’ve seen previously,” Dr. Henderson said. “Children can have aneurysms even if they don’t meet all the Kawasaki disease features, which makes it feel that this is somehow clinically different from what we’ve seen before. It’s not just the kids who have the rash and the conjunctivitis and the extremity changes and oral changes who have the aneurysms.”

The reason for including both IVIG and glucocorticoids as possible first-line drugs to prevent aneurysms is that some evidence suggests children with MIS-C may have higher levels of IVIG resistance, she said.

Like Dr. Wahezi, Dr. Henderson emphasized the necessarily transient nature of these recommendations.

“These recommendations will almost certainly change based on evolving understanding of MIS-C and the data,” Dr. Henderson said, adding that this new, unique condition highlights the importance of including children in allocating funding for research and in clinical trials.

“Children are not always identical to adults, and it’s really important that we have high-quality data to inform our decisions about how to care for them,” she said.

Dr. Wahezi had no disclosures. Dr. Henderson has consulted for Sobi and Adaptive Technologies. The guidelines did not note other disclosures for members of the ACR groups.

SOURCES: COVID-19 Clinical Guidance for Pediatric Patients with Rheumatic Disease and Clinical Guidance for Pediatric Patients with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) Associated with SARS-CoV-2 and Hyperinflammation in COVID-19

Two new clinical guidance documents from the American College of Rheumatology provide evidence-based recommendations for managing pediatric rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as diagnostic and treatment recommendations for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19 infection.

Although several children’s hospitals have published their treatment protocols for MIS-C since the condition’s initial discovery, the ACR appears to be the first medical organization to review all the most current evidence to issue interim guidance with the expectations that it will change as more data become available.

“It is challenging having to make recommendations not having a lot of scientific evidence, but we still felt we had to use whatever’s out there to the best of our ability and use our experience to put together these recommendations,” Dawn M. Wahezi, MD, chief of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“We wanted to be mindful of the fact that there are things we know and things we don’t know, and we have to be careful about what we’re recommending,” said Dr. Wahezi, a member of the ACR working group that assembled the recommendations for pediatric rheumatic disease management during the pandemic. “We’re recommending the best we can at this moment, but if there are new studies that come out and suggest otherwise, we will definitely have to go back and amend the document.”

The foremost priority of the pediatric rheumatic disease guidance focuses on maintaining control of the disease and avoiding flares that may put children at greater risk of infection. Dr. Wahezi said the ACR has received many calls from patients and clinicians asking whether patients should continue their immunosuppressant medications. Fear of the coronavirus infection, medication shortages, difficulty getting to the pharmacy, uneasiness about going to the clinic or hospital for infusions, and other barriers may have led to gaps in medication.

“We didn’t want people to be too quick to hold patients’ medications just because they were scared of COVID,” Dr. Wahezi said. “If they did have medication stopped for one reason or another and their disease flared, having active disease, regardless of which disease it is, actually puts you at higher risk for infection. By controlling their disease, that would be the way to protect them the most.”

A key takeaway in the guidance on MIS-C, meanwhile, is an emphasis on its rarity lest physicians be too quick to diagnose it and miss another serious condition with overlapping symptoms, explained Lauren Henderson, MD, an attending rheumatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Henderson participated in the ACR group that wrote the MIS-C guidance.

“The first thing we want to be thoughtful about clinically is to recognize that children in general with the acute infectious phase of SARS-CoV-2 have mild symptoms and generally do well,” Dr. Henderson said. “From what we can tell from all the data, MIS-C is rare. That really needs to be considered when clinicians on the ground are doing the diagnostic evaluation” because of concerns that clinicians “could rush to diagnose and treat patients with MIS-C and miss important diagnoses like malignancies and infections.”

Management of pediatric rheumatic disease during the pandemic

The COVID-19 clinical guidance for managing pediatric rheumatic disease grew from the work of the North American Pediatric Rheumatology Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included seven pediatric rheumatologists, two pediatric infectious disease physicians, one adult rheumatologist, and one pediatric nurse practitioner. The general guidance covers usual preventive measures for reducing risk for COVID-19 infection, the recommendation that children continue to receive recommended vaccines unless contraindicated by medication, and routine in-person visits for ophthalmologic surveillance of those with a history of uveitis or at high risk for chronic uveitis. The guidance also notes the risk of mental health concerns, such as depression and anxiety, related to quarantine and the pandemic.

The top recommendation is initiation or continuation of all medications necessary to control underlying disease, including NSAIDs, hydroxychloroquine, ACE inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, colchicine, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Even patients who may have had exposure to COVID-19 or who have an asymptomatic COVID-19 infection should continue to take these medications with the exception of ACEi/ARBs.

In those with pediatric rheumatic disease who have a symptomatic COVID-19 infection, “NSAIDs, HCQ, and colchicine may be continued, if necessary, to control underlying disease,” as can interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 inhibitors, but “cDMARDs, bDMARDs [except IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors] and tsDMARDs should be temporarily delayed or withheld,” according to the guidance. Glucocorticoids can be continued at the lowest possible dose to control disease.

“There’s nothing in the literature that suggests people who have rheumatic disease, especially children, and people who are on these medications, really are at increased risk for COVID-19,” Dr. Wahezi said. “That’s why we didn’t want people to be overcautious in stopping medications when the main priority is to control their disease.”

She noted some experts’ speculations that these medications may actually benefit patients with rheumatic disease who develop a COVID-19 infection because the medications keep the immune response in check. “If you allow them to have this dysregulated immune response and have active disease, you’re potentially putting them at greater risk,” Dr. Wahezi said, although she stressed that inadequate evidence exists to support these speculations right now.

Lack of evidence has been the biggest challenge all around with developing this guidance, she said.

“Because this is such an unprecedented situation and because people are so desperate to find treatments both for the illness and to protect those at risk for it, there are lots of people trying to put evidence out there, but it may not be the best-quality evidence,” Dr. Wahezi said.

Insufficient evidence also drove the group’s determination that “SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is not useful in informing on the history of infection or risk of reinfection,” as the guidance states. Too much variability in the assays exist, Dr. Wahezi said, and, further, it’s unclear what the clinical significance of a positive test would be.

“We didn’t want anyone to feel they had to make clinical decisions based on the results of that antibody testing,” she said. “Even if the test is accurate, we don’t know how to interpret it because it’s so new.”

The guidance also notes that patients with stable disease and previously stable lab markers on stable doses of their medication may be able to extend the interval for medication toxicity lab testing a few months if there is concern about exposure to COVID-19 to get the blood work.

“If you’re just starting a medicine or there’s someone who’s had abnormalities with the medicine in the past or you’re making medication adjustments, you wouldn’t do it in those scenarios, but if there’s someone who’s been on the drug for a long time and are nervous to get [blood] drawn, it’s probably okay to delay it,” Dr. Wahezi said. Lab work for disease activity measures, on the other hand, remain particularly important, especially since telemedicine visits may require clinicians to rely on lab results more than previously.

Management of MIS-C associated with COVID-19

The task force that developed guidance for the new inflammatory condition recently linked to SARS-CoV-2 infections in children included nine pediatric rheumatologists, two adult rheumatologists, two pediatric cardiologists, two pediatric infectious disease specialists, and one pediatric critical care physician.

The guidance includes a figure for the diagnostic pathway in evaluating children suspected of having MIS-C and extensive detail on diagnostic work-up, but the task force intentionally avoided providing a case definition for the condition. Existing case definitions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health differ from one another and are based on unclear evidence, Dr. Henderson noted. “We really don’t have enough data to know the sensitivity and specificity of each parameter, and until that’s available, we didn’t want to add to the confusion,” she said.

The guidance also stresses that MIS-C is a rare complication, so patients suspected of having the condition who do not have “life-threatening manifestations should undergo diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C as well as other possible infectious and noninfectious etiologies before immunomodulatory treatment is initiated,” the guidance states.

Unless a child is in shock or otherwise requires urgent care, physicians should take the time to complete the diagnostic work-up while monitoring the child, Dr. Henderson said. If the child does have MIS-C, the guidance currently recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and/or glucocorticoids to prevent coronary artery aneurysms, the same treatment other institutions have been recommending.

“We don’t have rigorous comparative studies looking at different types of treatments,” Dr. Henderson said, noting that the vast majority of children in the literature received IVIG and/or glucocorticoid treatment. “Often children really responded quite forcefully to those treatments, but we don’t have high-quality data yet to know that this treatment is better than supportive care or another medication.”

Dr. Henderson also stressed the importance of children receiving care at a facility with the necessary expertise to manage MIS-C and receiving long-term follow-up care from a multidisciplinary clinical team that includes a rheumatologist, an infectious disease doctor, a cardiologist, and possibly a hematologist.

“Making sure children are admitted to a hospital that has the resources and are followed by physicians with expertise or understanding of the intricacies of MIS-C is really important,” she said, particularly for children with cardiac involvement. “We don’t know if all the kids presenting with left ventricular dysfunction and shock are at risk for having myocardial fibrosis down the line,” she noted. “There is so much we do not understand and very little data to guide us on what to do, so these children really need to be under the care of a cardiologist and rheumatologist to make sure that their care is tailored to them.”

Although MIS-C shares overlapping symptoms with Kawasaki disease, it’s still unclear how similar or different the two conditions are, Dr. Henderson said.

“We can definitely say that when we look at MIS-C and compare it to historical groups of Kawasaki disease before the pandemic, there are definitely different features in the MIS-C group,” she said. Kawasaki disease generally only affects children under age 5, whereas MIS-C patients run the gamut from age 1-17. Racial demographics are also different, with a higher proportion of black children affected by MIS-C.

It’s possible that the pathophysiology of both conditions will turn out to be similar, particularly given the hypothesis that Kawasaki disease is triggered by infections in genetically predisposed people. However, the severity of symptoms and risk of aneurysms appear greater with MIS-C so far.

“The degree to which these patients are presenting with left ventricular dysfunction and shock is much higher than what we’ve seen previously,” Dr. Henderson said. “Children can have aneurysms even if they don’t meet all the Kawasaki disease features, which makes it feel that this is somehow clinically different from what we’ve seen before. It’s not just the kids who have the rash and the conjunctivitis and the extremity changes and oral changes who have the aneurysms.”

The reason for including both IVIG and glucocorticoids as possible first-line drugs to prevent aneurysms is that some evidence suggests children with MIS-C may have higher levels of IVIG resistance, she said.

Like Dr. Wahezi, Dr. Henderson emphasized the necessarily transient nature of these recommendations.

“These recommendations will almost certainly change based on evolving understanding of MIS-C and the data,” Dr. Henderson said, adding that this new, unique condition highlights the importance of including children in allocating funding for research and in clinical trials.

“Children are not always identical to adults, and it’s really important that we have high-quality data to inform our decisions about how to care for them,” she said.

Dr. Wahezi had no disclosures. Dr. Henderson has consulted for Sobi and Adaptive Technologies. The guidelines did not note other disclosures for members of the ACR groups.

SOURCES: COVID-19 Clinical Guidance for Pediatric Patients with Rheumatic Disease and Clinical Guidance for Pediatric Patients with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) Associated with SARS-CoV-2 and Hyperinflammation in COVID-19

Two new clinical guidance documents from the American College of Rheumatology provide evidence-based recommendations for managing pediatric rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as diagnostic and treatment recommendations for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19 infection.

Although several children’s hospitals have published their treatment protocols for MIS-C since the condition’s initial discovery, the ACR appears to be the first medical organization to review all the most current evidence to issue interim guidance with the expectations that it will change as more data become available.

“It is challenging having to make recommendations not having a lot of scientific evidence, but we still felt we had to use whatever’s out there to the best of our ability and use our experience to put together these recommendations,” Dawn M. Wahezi, MD, chief of pediatric rheumatology at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and an associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview.

“We wanted to be mindful of the fact that there are things we know and things we don’t know, and we have to be careful about what we’re recommending,” said Dr. Wahezi, a member of the ACR working group that assembled the recommendations for pediatric rheumatic disease management during the pandemic. “We’re recommending the best we can at this moment, but if there are new studies that come out and suggest otherwise, we will definitely have to go back and amend the document.”

The foremost priority of the pediatric rheumatic disease guidance focuses on maintaining control of the disease and avoiding flares that may put children at greater risk of infection. Dr. Wahezi said the ACR has received many calls from patients and clinicians asking whether patients should continue their immunosuppressant medications. Fear of the coronavirus infection, medication shortages, difficulty getting to the pharmacy, uneasiness about going to the clinic or hospital for infusions, and other barriers may have led to gaps in medication.

“We didn’t want people to be too quick to hold patients’ medications just because they were scared of COVID,” Dr. Wahezi said. “If they did have medication stopped for one reason or another and their disease flared, having active disease, regardless of which disease it is, actually puts you at higher risk for infection. By controlling their disease, that would be the way to protect them the most.”

A key takeaway in the guidance on MIS-C, meanwhile, is an emphasis on its rarity lest physicians be too quick to diagnose it and miss another serious condition with overlapping symptoms, explained Lauren Henderson, MD, an attending rheumatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Henderson participated in the ACR group that wrote the MIS-C guidance.

“The first thing we want to be thoughtful about clinically is to recognize that children in general with the acute infectious phase of SARS-CoV-2 have mild symptoms and generally do well,” Dr. Henderson said. “From what we can tell from all the data, MIS-C is rare. That really needs to be considered when clinicians on the ground are doing the diagnostic evaluation” because of concerns that clinicians “could rush to diagnose and treat patients with MIS-C and miss important diagnoses like malignancies and infections.”

Management of pediatric rheumatic disease during the pandemic

The COVID-19 clinical guidance for managing pediatric rheumatic disease grew from the work of the North American Pediatric Rheumatology Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included seven pediatric rheumatologists, two pediatric infectious disease physicians, one adult rheumatologist, and one pediatric nurse practitioner. The general guidance covers usual preventive measures for reducing risk for COVID-19 infection, the recommendation that children continue to receive recommended vaccines unless contraindicated by medication, and routine in-person visits for ophthalmologic surveillance of those with a history of uveitis or at high risk for chronic uveitis. The guidance also notes the risk of mental health concerns, such as depression and anxiety, related to quarantine and the pandemic.

The top recommendation is initiation or continuation of all medications necessary to control underlying disease, including NSAIDs, hydroxychloroquine, ACE inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, colchicine, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Even patients who may have had exposure to COVID-19 or who have an asymptomatic COVID-19 infection should continue to take these medications with the exception of ACEi/ARBs.

In those with pediatric rheumatic disease who have a symptomatic COVID-19 infection, “NSAIDs, HCQ, and colchicine may be continued, if necessary, to control underlying disease,” as can interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 inhibitors, but “cDMARDs, bDMARDs [except IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors] and tsDMARDs should be temporarily delayed or withheld,” according to the guidance. Glucocorticoids can be continued at the lowest possible dose to control disease.

“There’s nothing in the literature that suggests people who have rheumatic disease, especially children, and people who are on these medications, really are at increased risk for COVID-19,” Dr. Wahezi said. “That’s why we didn’t want people to be overcautious in stopping medications when the main priority is to control their disease.”

She noted some experts’ speculations that these medications may actually benefit patients with rheumatic disease who develop a COVID-19 infection because the medications keep the immune response in check. “If you allow them to have this dysregulated immune response and have active disease, you’re potentially putting them at greater risk,” Dr. Wahezi said, although she stressed that inadequate evidence exists to support these speculations right now.

Lack of evidence has been the biggest challenge all around with developing this guidance, she said.

“Because this is such an unprecedented situation and because people are so desperate to find treatments both for the illness and to protect those at risk for it, there are lots of people trying to put evidence out there, but it may not be the best-quality evidence,” Dr. Wahezi said.

Insufficient evidence also drove the group’s determination that “SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is not useful in informing on the history of infection or risk of reinfection,” as the guidance states. Too much variability in the assays exist, Dr. Wahezi said, and, further, it’s unclear what the clinical significance of a positive test would be.

“We didn’t want anyone to feel they had to make clinical decisions based on the results of that antibody testing,” she said. “Even if the test is accurate, we don’t know how to interpret it because it’s so new.”

The guidance also notes that patients with stable disease and previously stable lab markers on stable doses of their medication may be able to extend the interval for medication toxicity lab testing a few months if there is concern about exposure to COVID-19 to get the blood work.

“If you’re just starting a medicine or there’s someone who’s had abnormalities with the medicine in the past or you’re making medication adjustments, you wouldn’t do it in those scenarios, but if there’s someone who’s been on the drug for a long time and are nervous to get [blood] drawn, it’s probably okay to delay it,” Dr. Wahezi said. Lab work for disease activity measures, on the other hand, remain particularly important, especially since telemedicine visits may require clinicians to rely on lab results more than previously.

Management of MIS-C associated with COVID-19

The task force that developed guidance for the new inflammatory condition recently linked to SARS-CoV-2 infections in children included nine pediatric rheumatologists, two adult rheumatologists, two pediatric cardiologists, two pediatric infectious disease specialists, and one pediatric critical care physician.

The guidance includes a figure for the diagnostic pathway in evaluating children suspected of having MIS-C and extensive detail on diagnostic work-up, but the task force intentionally avoided providing a case definition for the condition. Existing case definitions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health differ from one another and are based on unclear evidence, Dr. Henderson noted. “We really don’t have enough data to know the sensitivity and specificity of each parameter, and until that’s available, we didn’t want to add to the confusion,” she said.

The guidance also stresses that MIS-C is a rare complication, so patients suspected of having the condition who do not have “life-threatening manifestations should undergo diagnostic evaluation for MIS-C as well as other possible infectious and noninfectious etiologies before immunomodulatory treatment is initiated,” the guidance states.

Unless a child is in shock or otherwise requires urgent care, physicians should take the time to complete the diagnostic work-up while monitoring the child, Dr. Henderson said. If the child does have MIS-C, the guidance currently recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and/or glucocorticoids to prevent coronary artery aneurysms, the same treatment other institutions have been recommending.

“We don’t have rigorous comparative studies looking at different types of treatments,” Dr. Henderson said, noting that the vast majority of children in the literature received IVIG and/or glucocorticoid treatment. “Often children really responded quite forcefully to those treatments, but we don’t have high-quality data yet to know that this treatment is better than supportive care or another medication.”

Dr. Henderson also stressed the importance of children receiving care at a facility with the necessary expertise to manage MIS-C and receiving long-term follow-up care from a multidisciplinary clinical team that includes a rheumatologist, an infectious disease doctor, a cardiologist, and possibly a hematologist.

“Making sure children are admitted to a hospital that has the resources and are followed by physicians with expertise or understanding of the intricacies of MIS-C is really important,” she said, particularly for children with cardiac involvement. “We don’t know if all the kids presenting with left ventricular dysfunction and shock are at risk for having myocardial fibrosis down the line,” she noted. “There is so much we do not understand and very little data to guide us on what to do, so these children really need to be under the care of a cardiologist and rheumatologist to make sure that their care is tailored to them.”

Although MIS-C shares overlapping symptoms with Kawasaki disease, it’s still unclear how similar or different the two conditions are, Dr. Henderson said.

“We can definitely say that when we look at MIS-C and compare it to historical groups of Kawasaki disease before the pandemic, there are definitely different features in the MIS-C group,” she said. Kawasaki disease generally only affects children under age 5, whereas MIS-C patients run the gamut from age 1-17. Racial demographics are also different, with a higher proportion of black children affected by MIS-C.

It’s possible that the pathophysiology of both conditions will turn out to be similar, particularly given the hypothesis that Kawasaki disease is triggered by infections in genetically predisposed people. However, the severity of symptoms and risk of aneurysms appear greater with MIS-C so far.

“The degree to which these patients are presenting with left ventricular dysfunction and shock is much higher than what we’ve seen previously,” Dr. Henderson said. “Children can have aneurysms even if they don’t meet all the Kawasaki disease features, which makes it feel that this is somehow clinically different from what we’ve seen before. It’s not just the kids who have the rash and the conjunctivitis and the extremity changes and oral changes who have the aneurysms.”

The reason for including both IVIG and glucocorticoids as possible first-line drugs to prevent aneurysms is that some evidence suggests children with MIS-C may have higher levels of IVIG resistance, she said.

Like Dr. Wahezi, Dr. Henderson emphasized the necessarily transient nature of these recommendations.

“These recommendations will almost certainly change based on evolving understanding of MIS-C and the data,” Dr. Henderson said, adding that this new, unique condition highlights the importance of including children in allocating funding for research and in clinical trials.

“Children are not always identical to adults, and it’s really important that we have high-quality data to inform our decisions about how to care for them,” she said.

Dr. Wahezi had no disclosures. Dr. Henderson has consulted for Sobi and Adaptive Technologies. The guidelines did not note other disclosures for members of the ACR groups.

SOURCES: COVID-19 Clinical Guidance for Pediatric Patients with Rheumatic Disease and Clinical Guidance for Pediatric Patients with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) Associated with SARS-CoV-2 and Hyperinflammation in COVID-19

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a higher risk for death in comparison to open surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers, according to two new reports.

In the first study, use of MIS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer was associated with an increased risk for capsule rupture, which, in turn, led to an increase in mortality.

“There was a striking association between an increased risk of capsule rupture with use of minimally invasive surgery,” said Jason D. Wright, MD, chief, division of gynecologic oncology, Columbia University Herbert Irving Cancer Comprehensive Center, New York, who was a coauthor for both studies.

“This is certainly worrisome, as there are limited data describing the safety of minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and we noted that the use of minimally invasive procedures increased substantially,” he added.

The second article, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk for recurrence and death in comparison to open surgery for women with early-stage cervical cancer. This confirms previous reports of worse outcomes, including a randomized trial (the LACC study) published in 2018. The results of that trial showed an increased risk for death, which was “unexpected and alarming.”

The meta-analysis confirms and “demonstrates the magnitude of this risk on recurrence rates and survival,” Dr. Wright said in an interview.

“Given these data, I think that clinicians should use great caution in performing this procedure and that the majority of women with cervical cancer who undergo radical hysterectomy should likely have an open surgery,” said Dr. Wright.

Both articles were published on June 11 in JAMA Oncology.

These “two important studies add to the growing body of literature that suggest a worse outcome for patients with gynecologic cancers who are treated with MIS,” Amer Karam, MD, and Oliver Dorigo, MD, PhD, both from Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
 

Ovarian cancer MIS and capsule rupture

In the study of MIS in ovarian cancer, observational data were collected on 8850 women (mean age, 55.6 years) with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who were registered in the National Cancer Database and who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2015. Roughly one third (n = 2,600) underwent MIS; the remainder underwent open surgery.

During the 5 years of the study period, there was a 80% increase in the use of MIS, from 19.8% to 34.9% (P < .001).

The data show that 1,994 patients (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture and that the rate of rupture rose from 20.2% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. This extrapolates to an 18.3% relative increase (Cochran-Armitage trend test P = 0.02).

Multivariable analysis showed that MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17), as was larger tumor size. Additionally, receipt of chemotherapy increased the risk for rupture (unilateral tumors, 67.0% vs. 38.6%; bilateral tumors, 80.0% vs. 58.9%; P < .001).

The 4-year overall survival rate was 91% in 2010 and fell to 86% in 2015.

Among those with ruptured tumors, the 4-year overall survival was 86.8% for those who underwent open surgery and 88.9% for patients who underwent MIS.

Among women with nonruptured tumors, these rates were 90.5% and 91.5%, respectively (log-rank test, P = .001).

An adjusted model showed that the use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in comparison with MIS in which capsule rupture did not occur (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41). In addition, laparotomy with capsule rupture was also independently associated with a greater risk for all-cause mortality compared with laparotomy without capsule rupture (aHR, 1.43).

“I think clinicians need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery and the risk of rupture of an ovarian cancer in women, and high-quality studies are clearly needed to address this topic,” said Dr. Wright.
 

Lower survival in cervical cancer

The second study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 9,499 women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 to IIA cervical cancer.

Nearly half of the cohort (n = 4,684; 49%) underwent MIS. Of those, 57% (n = 2675) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy.

A total of 530 recurrences and 451 deaths were reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent MIS in comparison with those who underwent open surgery (HR, 1.71; P < .001). The hazard of death was 56% higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group (HR, 1.56; P = .004).

“The magnitude of the effect, while lower than that reported in the LACC trial, is still notable and likely reflects real-world outcomes,” the editorialists said.

They also noted that the “results of the LACC trial remain controversial but were followed by a global decrease in the use of MIS for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.”

However, the editorialists also highlighted the advantages of MIS, saying it has “considerable benefits” in the treatment of gynecologic cancer.

They cited an article from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, which reports an analysis of 2076 endometrial cancer cases that found a much lower complication rate after MIS compared with laparotomy (12% vs. 31%).

“Shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates could result in an estimated cost savings of $534 million if MIS was used in 90% of all patients with endometrial cancer in the U.S.A.,” they wrote.

Nevertheless, they added that “the short-term advantages of MIS for gynecologic cancers should be weighed against the risks of potentially worse long-term outcomes.”

These two latest studies should serve as another call to action, they concluded. “We owe it to patients to study any surgical or medical intervention adhering to the highest standards of clinical investigation.”

The ovarian cancer study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center and the National Institutes of Health. The cervical cancer meta-analysis study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Dr. Wright has received grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work; several coauthors from both articles report relationships with industry. Dr. Karam has received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Dorigo has received fees from many pharmaceutical companies and salary for medical legal expert witness testimony.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a higher risk for death in comparison to open surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers, according to two new reports.

In the first study, use of MIS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer was associated with an increased risk for capsule rupture, which, in turn, led to an increase in mortality.

“There was a striking association between an increased risk of capsule rupture with use of minimally invasive surgery,” said Jason D. Wright, MD, chief, division of gynecologic oncology, Columbia University Herbert Irving Cancer Comprehensive Center, New York, who was a coauthor for both studies.

“This is certainly worrisome, as there are limited data describing the safety of minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and we noted that the use of minimally invasive procedures increased substantially,” he added.

The second article, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk for recurrence and death in comparison to open surgery for women with early-stage cervical cancer. This confirms previous reports of worse outcomes, including a randomized trial (the LACC study) published in 2018. The results of that trial showed an increased risk for death, which was “unexpected and alarming.”

The meta-analysis confirms and “demonstrates the magnitude of this risk on recurrence rates and survival,” Dr. Wright said in an interview.

“Given these data, I think that clinicians should use great caution in performing this procedure and that the majority of women with cervical cancer who undergo radical hysterectomy should likely have an open surgery,” said Dr. Wright.

Both articles were published on June 11 in JAMA Oncology.

These “two important studies add to the growing body of literature that suggest a worse outcome for patients with gynecologic cancers who are treated with MIS,” Amer Karam, MD, and Oliver Dorigo, MD, PhD, both from Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
 

Ovarian cancer MIS and capsule rupture

In the study of MIS in ovarian cancer, observational data were collected on 8850 women (mean age, 55.6 years) with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who were registered in the National Cancer Database and who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2015. Roughly one third (n = 2,600) underwent MIS; the remainder underwent open surgery.

During the 5 years of the study period, there was a 80% increase in the use of MIS, from 19.8% to 34.9% (P < .001).

The data show that 1,994 patients (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture and that the rate of rupture rose from 20.2% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. This extrapolates to an 18.3% relative increase (Cochran-Armitage trend test P = 0.02).

Multivariable analysis showed that MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17), as was larger tumor size. Additionally, receipt of chemotherapy increased the risk for rupture (unilateral tumors, 67.0% vs. 38.6%; bilateral tumors, 80.0% vs. 58.9%; P < .001).

The 4-year overall survival rate was 91% in 2010 and fell to 86% in 2015.

Among those with ruptured tumors, the 4-year overall survival was 86.8% for those who underwent open surgery and 88.9% for patients who underwent MIS.

Among women with nonruptured tumors, these rates were 90.5% and 91.5%, respectively (log-rank test, P = .001).

An adjusted model showed that the use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in comparison with MIS in which capsule rupture did not occur (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41). In addition, laparotomy with capsule rupture was also independently associated with a greater risk for all-cause mortality compared with laparotomy without capsule rupture (aHR, 1.43).

“I think clinicians need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery and the risk of rupture of an ovarian cancer in women, and high-quality studies are clearly needed to address this topic,” said Dr. Wright.
 

Lower survival in cervical cancer

The second study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 9,499 women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 to IIA cervical cancer.

Nearly half of the cohort (n = 4,684; 49%) underwent MIS. Of those, 57% (n = 2675) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy.

A total of 530 recurrences and 451 deaths were reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent MIS in comparison with those who underwent open surgery (HR, 1.71; P < .001). The hazard of death was 56% higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group (HR, 1.56; P = .004).

“The magnitude of the effect, while lower than that reported in the LACC trial, is still notable and likely reflects real-world outcomes,” the editorialists said.

They also noted that the “results of the LACC trial remain controversial but were followed by a global decrease in the use of MIS for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.”

However, the editorialists also highlighted the advantages of MIS, saying it has “considerable benefits” in the treatment of gynecologic cancer.

They cited an article from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, which reports an analysis of 2076 endometrial cancer cases that found a much lower complication rate after MIS compared with laparotomy (12% vs. 31%).

“Shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates could result in an estimated cost savings of $534 million if MIS was used in 90% of all patients with endometrial cancer in the U.S.A.,” they wrote.

Nevertheless, they added that “the short-term advantages of MIS for gynecologic cancers should be weighed against the risks of potentially worse long-term outcomes.”

These two latest studies should serve as another call to action, they concluded. “We owe it to patients to study any surgical or medical intervention adhering to the highest standards of clinical investigation.”

The ovarian cancer study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center and the National Institutes of Health. The cervical cancer meta-analysis study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Dr. Wright has received grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work; several coauthors from both articles report relationships with industry. Dr. Karam has received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Dorigo has received fees from many pharmaceutical companies and salary for medical legal expert witness testimony.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a higher risk for death in comparison to open surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers, according to two new reports.

In the first study, use of MIS for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer was associated with an increased risk for capsule rupture, which, in turn, led to an increase in mortality.

“There was a striking association between an increased risk of capsule rupture with use of minimally invasive surgery,” said Jason D. Wright, MD, chief, division of gynecologic oncology, Columbia University Herbert Irving Cancer Comprehensive Center, New York, who was a coauthor for both studies.

“This is certainly worrisome, as there are limited data describing the safety of minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, and we noted that the use of minimally invasive procedures increased substantially,” he added.

The second article, a meta-analysis of 15 studies, found that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk for recurrence and death in comparison to open surgery for women with early-stage cervical cancer. This confirms previous reports of worse outcomes, including a randomized trial (the LACC study) published in 2018. The results of that trial showed an increased risk for death, which was “unexpected and alarming.”

The meta-analysis confirms and “demonstrates the magnitude of this risk on recurrence rates and survival,” Dr. Wright said in an interview.

“Given these data, I think that clinicians should use great caution in performing this procedure and that the majority of women with cervical cancer who undergo radical hysterectomy should likely have an open surgery,” said Dr. Wright.

Both articles were published on June 11 in JAMA Oncology.

These “two important studies add to the growing body of literature that suggest a worse outcome for patients with gynecologic cancers who are treated with MIS,” Amer Karam, MD, and Oliver Dorigo, MD, PhD, both from Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
 

Ovarian cancer MIS and capsule rupture

In the study of MIS in ovarian cancer, observational data were collected on 8850 women (mean age, 55.6 years) with stage I epithelial ovarian cancer who were registered in the National Cancer Database and who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2015. Roughly one third (n = 2,600) underwent MIS; the remainder underwent open surgery.

During the 5 years of the study period, there was a 80% increase in the use of MIS, from 19.8% to 34.9% (P < .001).

The data show that 1,994 patients (22.5%) experienced capsule rupture and that the rate of rupture rose from 20.2% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. This extrapolates to an 18.3% relative increase (Cochran-Armitage trend test P = 0.02).

Multivariable analysis showed that MIS was independently associated with capsule rupture (adjusted relative risk, 1.17), as was larger tumor size. Additionally, receipt of chemotherapy increased the risk for rupture (unilateral tumors, 67.0% vs. 38.6%; bilateral tumors, 80.0% vs. 58.9%; P < .001).

The 4-year overall survival rate was 91% in 2010 and fell to 86% in 2015.

Among those with ruptured tumors, the 4-year overall survival was 86.8% for those who underwent open surgery and 88.9% for patients who underwent MIS.

Among women with nonruptured tumors, these rates were 90.5% and 91.5%, respectively (log-rank test, P = .001).

An adjusted model showed that the use of MIS with capsule rupture was independently associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in comparison with MIS in which capsule rupture did not occur (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41). In addition, laparotomy with capsule rupture was also independently associated with a greater risk for all-cause mortality compared with laparotomy without capsule rupture (aHR, 1.43).

“I think clinicians need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of minimally invasive surgery and the risk of rupture of an ovarian cancer in women, and high-quality studies are clearly needed to address this topic,” said Dr. Wright.
 

Lower survival in cervical cancer

The second study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving 9,499 women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA1 to IIA cervical cancer.

Nearly half of the cohort (n = 4,684; 49%) underwent MIS. Of those, 57% (n = 2675) underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy.

A total of 530 recurrences and 451 deaths were reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent MIS in comparison with those who underwent open surgery (HR, 1.71; P < .001). The hazard of death was 56% higher in the MIS group than in the open surgery group (HR, 1.56; P = .004).

“The magnitude of the effect, while lower than that reported in the LACC trial, is still notable and likely reflects real-world outcomes,” the editorialists said.

They also noted that the “results of the LACC trial remain controversial but were followed by a global decrease in the use of MIS for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.”

However, the editorialists also highlighted the advantages of MIS, saying it has “considerable benefits” in the treatment of gynecologic cancer.

They cited an article from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program, which reports an analysis of 2076 endometrial cancer cases that found a much lower complication rate after MIS compared with laparotomy (12% vs. 31%).

“Shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates could result in an estimated cost savings of $534 million if MIS was used in 90% of all patients with endometrial cancer in the U.S.A.,” they wrote.

Nevertheless, they added that “the short-term advantages of MIS for gynecologic cancers should be weighed against the risks of potentially worse long-term outcomes.”

These two latest studies should serve as another call to action, they concluded. “We owe it to patients to study any surgical or medical intervention adhering to the highest standards of clinical investigation.”

The ovarian cancer study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center and the National Institutes of Health. The cervical cancer meta-analysis study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research and Ensign Endowment for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Dr. Wright has received grants from Merck and consultation fees from Clovis Oncology outside the submitted work; several coauthors from both articles report relationships with industry. Dr. Karam has received personal fees from Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, GSK, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Dorigo has received fees from many pharmaceutical companies and salary for medical legal expert witness testimony.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor risankizumab was decisively more effective than the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab at 52 weeks in a multinational randomized head-to-head trial in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab was better tolerated, with a significantly lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events and a lower study dropout rate, Richard B. Warren, MBChB, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In addition, the dosing schedule for risankizumab (Skyrizi) is more convenient, with maintenance dosing by subcutaneous injection once every 12 weeks, compared with monthly for secukinumab (Cosentyx), a biologic for psoriasis considered state-of-the-art not long ago, noted Dr. Warren, a dermatologist at the Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust and the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Center as well as professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester.

The phase 3 IMMERGE trial included 327 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis randomized to risankizumab or secukinumab for 52 weeks at their approved dosing. The trial, conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was open label, but evaluator blinded.

The coprimary endpoints were a 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 90) at weeks 16 and 52. The week 52 PASI 90 response rates were 87% in the risankizumab group and 57% with secukinumab, for a highly significant absolute 30% difference. The week 16 result was a prespecified noninferiority analysis, and here again risankizumab met its mark, with a PASI 90 rate of 74%, statistically noninferior to the 66% rate with secukinumab, even though at that point patients had received only two doses of risankizumab, versus seven doses of secukinumab.

The PASI 100 response rate at 52 weeks, a key secondary endpoint, was 66% with risankizumab and 40% with secukinumab. Another secondary endpoint was achievement of a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – at week 52; the rates were 88% with risankizumab, 58% with secukinumab.

Ninety-two percent of participants randomized to risankizumab completed the full 52-week study, as did 82.8% of the secukinumab group. The nearly 10% absolute lower completion rate in the secukinumab group was driven by a higher rate of lack of efficacy – 4.3%, compared to 0.6% for risankizumab – and a greater incidence of adverse events. Indeed, treatment-emergent adverse events were fourfold more common in the secukinumab arm, with a rate of 4.9%, versus 1.2% with risankizumab, according to Dr. Warren.

He reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to the study sponsor, AbbVie, as well as roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor risankizumab was decisively more effective than the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab at 52 weeks in a multinational randomized head-to-head trial in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab was better tolerated, with a significantly lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events and a lower study dropout rate, Richard B. Warren, MBChB, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In addition, the dosing schedule for risankizumab (Skyrizi) is more convenient, with maintenance dosing by subcutaneous injection once every 12 weeks, compared with monthly for secukinumab (Cosentyx), a biologic for psoriasis considered state-of-the-art not long ago, noted Dr. Warren, a dermatologist at the Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust and the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Center as well as professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester.

The phase 3 IMMERGE trial included 327 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis randomized to risankizumab or secukinumab for 52 weeks at their approved dosing. The trial, conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was open label, but evaluator blinded.

The coprimary endpoints were a 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 90) at weeks 16 and 52. The week 52 PASI 90 response rates were 87% in the risankizumab group and 57% with secukinumab, for a highly significant absolute 30% difference. The week 16 result was a prespecified noninferiority analysis, and here again risankizumab met its mark, with a PASI 90 rate of 74%, statistically noninferior to the 66% rate with secukinumab, even though at that point patients had received only two doses of risankizumab, versus seven doses of secukinumab.

The PASI 100 response rate at 52 weeks, a key secondary endpoint, was 66% with risankizumab and 40% with secukinumab. Another secondary endpoint was achievement of a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – at week 52; the rates were 88% with risankizumab, 58% with secukinumab.

Ninety-two percent of participants randomized to risankizumab completed the full 52-week study, as did 82.8% of the secukinumab group. The nearly 10% absolute lower completion rate in the secukinumab group was driven by a higher rate of lack of efficacy – 4.3%, compared to 0.6% for risankizumab – and a greater incidence of adverse events. Indeed, treatment-emergent adverse events were fourfold more common in the secukinumab arm, with a rate of 4.9%, versus 1.2% with risankizumab, according to Dr. Warren.

He reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to the study sponsor, AbbVie, as well as roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor risankizumab was decisively more effective than the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab at 52 weeks in a multinational randomized head-to-head trial in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab was better tolerated, with a significantly lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events and a lower study dropout rate, Richard B. Warren, MBChB, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In addition, the dosing schedule for risankizumab (Skyrizi) is more convenient, with maintenance dosing by subcutaneous injection once every 12 weeks, compared with monthly for secukinumab (Cosentyx), a biologic for psoriasis considered state-of-the-art not long ago, noted Dr. Warren, a dermatologist at the Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust and the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Center as well as professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester.

The phase 3 IMMERGE trial included 327 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis randomized to risankizumab or secukinumab for 52 weeks at their approved dosing. The trial, conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was open label, but evaluator blinded.

The coprimary endpoints were a 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 90) at weeks 16 and 52. The week 52 PASI 90 response rates were 87% in the risankizumab group and 57% with secukinumab, for a highly significant absolute 30% difference. The week 16 result was a prespecified noninferiority analysis, and here again risankizumab met its mark, with a PASI 90 rate of 74%, statistically noninferior to the 66% rate with secukinumab, even though at that point patients had received only two doses of risankizumab, versus seven doses of secukinumab.

The PASI 100 response rate at 52 weeks, a key secondary endpoint, was 66% with risankizumab and 40% with secukinumab. Another secondary endpoint was achievement of a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – at week 52; the rates were 88% with risankizumab, 58% with secukinumab.

Ninety-two percent of participants randomized to risankizumab completed the full 52-week study, as did 82.8% of the secukinumab group. The nearly 10% absolute lower completion rate in the secukinumab group was driven by a higher rate of lack of efficacy – 4.3%, compared to 0.6% for risankizumab – and a greater incidence of adverse events. Indeed, treatment-emergent adverse events were fourfold more common in the secukinumab arm, with a rate of 4.9%, versus 1.2% with risankizumab, according to Dr. Warren.

He reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to the study sponsor, AbbVie, as well as roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Adults with prediabetes of normal weight may derive at least as much benefit from lifestyle health coaching programs as adults who are overweight or obese, results of a recent nonrandomized, real-world study show.

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) normalized in about 63% of prediabetic adults with normal body mass index (BMI) participating in a personalized coaching program that emphasized exercise, nutrition, and weight management, according to researcher Mandy Salmon, MS.

By contrast, FPG normalized in about 52% of overweight and 44% of obese prediabetic individuals participating in the program, according to Ms. Salmon, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The normal-weight individuals didn’t lose any weight after participating in the coaching program, but they did significantly increase exercise, as did their overweight and obese counterparts, Ms. Salmon said in a presentation of her findings at virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That means not only that normal-weight individuals shouldn’t be excluded from coaching interventions for diabetes prevention, but also that the success of such programs shouldn’t be judged solely on the magnitude of weight loss, according to the researcher.

“It is interesting to note that, although the normal weight group lost the least amount of weight, they still benefited from the lifestyle health coaching program, but having a resultant greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose and normalization to a range of someone without prediabetes,” Ms. Salmon said.

The fact that most of those patients experienced normalization of FPG despite no weight loss emphasizes the importance of physical activity as a lifestyle intervention, according to Mark Schutta, MD, medical director of Penn Rodebaugh Diabetes Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“You hear these axioms that say things like, ‘you can never outexercise a bad diet,’ and that’s probably true. But all the studies will tell us that a fit, overweight diabetic has much lower risk of cardiovascular disease than an unfit overweight diabetic,” Dr. Schutta said in an interview.
 

Benefits in normal-weight individuals

One in three Americans has prediabetes, and of those individuals, one in five have a normal BMI, Ms. Salmon said in her virtual ADA presentation.

It’s thought that diabetes may develop in those normal-weight individuals through different pathological mechanisms than in overweight or obese individuals. In turn, that could mean that standard methods for staving off diabetes prevention may not be as effective for them, she said.

Those mechanisms are not well understood; even so, normal BMI is currently an exclusion criterion for many diabetes prevention programs, she added, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, which specifically requires that individuals have an elevated BMI to be eligible for referral.

To evaluate the potential benefits of coaching in normal-weight individuals, the investigators studied a cohort of 1,897 adults with prediabetes, defined as a baseline FPG of 100-125 mg/dL, who were participating in a lifestyle health coaching program. Of those participants, 188, or about 10% had a normal BMI of 18.5-24.9 mg/m². Another 495 participants were overweight, with BMIs between 25 and 29.9, while 1,214 were obese, with a BMI of at least 30.

The intervention included an initial assessment to generate goals and a personalized action plan based on the individual’s risk factors, according to Ms. Salmon, along with an action plan that included one-on-one, behaviorally oriented, technology-enabled lifestyle health coaching focused on exercise and physical activity, weight management, and nutrition.
 

Key findings

With a mean follow-up of 145 days, weight loss in the obese group was greater than that of the overweight group, with mean BMI changes of –1.3 and –0.6, respectively, while there was no significant change in weight for the normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon.

By contrast, weekly aerobic activity increased significantly in all three groups, she added, with average increases of 95 minutes in the obese group, 98 minutes in the overweight group, and 77 minutes in the normal-weight group.

Likewise, significant decreases in FPG were seen in all 3 groups, with average changes of –6 mg/dL for the obese participants, –7 mg/dL for overweight participants, and –9 mg/dL for normal-weight participants, Ms. Salmon said.

The proportion of individuals whose FPG normalized was highest in the normal-weight group, at 62%, compared with 51.7% for overweight and 44% for obese individuals, she added.

Most previous studies of lifestyle interventions for prediabetes have excluded normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon, who said one strength of her study was that the subjects were already participating in the established lifestyle health coaching program and didn’t interact with the team of researchers.

“It was an effectiveness study in which we could see the real-world benefits of the program, rather than a theoretical efficacy study,” she said.

Ms. Salmon said she had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The coinvestigators of the study were members or employees of a privately held population health management company called INTERVENT International.

SOURCE: Salmon MK et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 273-OR.

Adults with prediabetes of normal weight may derive at least as much benefit from lifestyle health coaching programs as adults who are overweight or obese, results of a recent nonrandomized, real-world study show.

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) normalized in about 63% of prediabetic adults with normal body mass index (BMI) participating in a personalized coaching program that emphasized exercise, nutrition, and weight management, according to researcher Mandy Salmon, MS.

By contrast, FPG normalized in about 52% of overweight and 44% of obese prediabetic individuals participating in the program, according to Ms. Salmon, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The normal-weight individuals didn’t lose any weight after participating in the coaching program, but they did significantly increase exercise, as did their overweight and obese counterparts, Ms. Salmon said in a presentation of her findings at virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That means not only that normal-weight individuals shouldn’t be excluded from coaching interventions for diabetes prevention, but also that the success of such programs shouldn’t be judged solely on the magnitude of weight loss, according to the researcher.

“It is interesting to note that, although the normal weight group lost the least amount of weight, they still benefited from the lifestyle health coaching program, but having a resultant greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose and normalization to a range of someone without prediabetes,” Ms. Salmon said.

The fact that most of those patients experienced normalization of FPG despite no weight loss emphasizes the importance of physical activity as a lifestyle intervention, according to Mark Schutta, MD, medical director of Penn Rodebaugh Diabetes Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“You hear these axioms that say things like, ‘you can never outexercise a bad diet,’ and that’s probably true. But all the studies will tell us that a fit, overweight diabetic has much lower risk of cardiovascular disease than an unfit overweight diabetic,” Dr. Schutta said in an interview.
 

Benefits in normal-weight individuals

One in three Americans has prediabetes, and of those individuals, one in five have a normal BMI, Ms. Salmon said in her virtual ADA presentation.

It’s thought that diabetes may develop in those normal-weight individuals through different pathological mechanisms than in overweight or obese individuals. In turn, that could mean that standard methods for staving off diabetes prevention may not be as effective for them, she said.

Those mechanisms are not well understood; even so, normal BMI is currently an exclusion criterion for many diabetes prevention programs, she added, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, which specifically requires that individuals have an elevated BMI to be eligible for referral.

To evaluate the potential benefits of coaching in normal-weight individuals, the investigators studied a cohort of 1,897 adults with prediabetes, defined as a baseline FPG of 100-125 mg/dL, who were participating in a lifestyle health coaching program. Of those participants, 188, or about 10% had a normal BMI of 18.5-24.9 mg/m². Another 495 participants were overweight, with BMIs between 25 and 29.9, while 1,214 were obese, with a BMI of at least 30.

The intervention included an initial assessment to generate goals and a personalized action plan based on the individual’s risk factors, according to Ms. Salmon, along with an action plan that included one-on-one, behaviorally oriented, technology-enabled lifestyle health coaching focused on exercise and physical activity, weight management, and nutrition.
 

Key findings

With a mean follow-up of 145 days, weight loss in the obese group was greater than that of the overweight group, with mean BMI changes of –1.3 and –0.6, respectively, while there was no significant change in weight for the normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon.

By contrast, weekly aerobic activity increased significantly in all three groups, she added, with average increases of 95 minutes in the obese group, 98 minutes in the overweight group, and 77 minutes in the normal-weight group.

Likewise, significant decreases in FPG were seen in all 3 groups, with average changes of –6 mg/dL for the obese participants, –7 mg/dL for overweight participants, and –9 mg/dL for normal-weight participants, Ms. Salmon said.

The proportion of individuals whose FPG normalized was highest in the normal-weight group, at 62%, compared with 51.7% for overweight and 44% for obese individuals, she added.

Most previous studies of lifestyle interventions for prediabetes have excluded normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon, who said one strength of her study was that the subjects were already participating in the established lifestyle health coaching program and didn’t interact with the team of researchers.

“It was an effectiveness study in which we could see the real-world benefits of the program, rather than a theoretical efficacy study,” she said.

Ms. Salmon said she had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The coinvestigators of the study were members or employees of a privately held population health management company called INTERVENT International.

SOURCE: Salmon MK et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 273-OR.

Adults with prediabetes of normal weight may derive at least as much benefit from lifestyle health coaching programs as adults who are overweight or obese, results of a recent nonrandomized, real-world study show.

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) normalized in about 63% of prediabetic adults with normal body mass index (BMI) participating in a personalized coaching program that emphasized exercise, nutrition, and weight management, according to researcher Mandy Salmon, MS.

By contrast, FPG normalized in about 52% of overweight and 44% of obese prediabetic individuals participating in the program, according to Ms. Salmon, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The normal-weight individuals didn’t lose any weight after participating in the coaching program, but they did significantly increase exercise, as did their overweight and obese counterparts, Ms. Salmon said in a presentation of her findings at virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

That means not only that normal-weight individuals shouldn’t be excluded from coaching interventions for diabetes prevention, but also that the success of such programs shouldn’t be judged solely on the magnitude of weight loss, according to the researcher.

“It is interesting to note that, although the normal weight group lost the least amount of weight, they still benefited from the lifestyle health coaching program, but having a resultant greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose and normalization to a range of someone without prediabetes,” Ms. Salmon said.

The fact that most of those patients experienced normalization of FPG despite no weight loss emphasizes the importance of physical activity as a lifestyle intervention, according to Mark Schutta, MD, medical director of Penn Rodebaugh Diabetes Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“You hear these axioms that say things like, ‘you can never outexercise a bad diet,’ and that’s probably true. But all the studies will tell us that a fit, overweight diabetic has much lower risk of cardiovascular disease than an unfit overweight diabetic,” Dr. Schutta said in an interview.
 

Benefits in normal-weight individuals

One in three Americans has prediabetes, and of those individuals, one in five have a normal BMI, Ms. Salmon said in her virtual ADA presentation.

It’s thought that diabetes may develop in those normal-weight individuals through different pathological mechanisms than in overweight or obese individuals. In turn, that could mean that standard methods for staving off diabetes prevention may not be as effective for them, she said.

Those mechanisms are not well understood; even so, normal BMI is currently an exclusion criterion for many diabetes prevention programs, she added, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, which specifically requires that individuals have an elevated BMI to be eligible for referral.

To evaluate the potential benefits of coaching in normal-weight individuals, the investigators studied a cohort of 1,897 adults with prediabetes, defined as a baseline FPG of 100-125 mg/dL, who were participating in a lifestyle health coaching program. Of those participants, 188, or about 10% had a normal BMI of 18.5-24.9 mg/m². Another 495 participants were overweight, with BMIs between 25 and 29.9, while 1,214 were obese, with a BMI of at least 30.

The intervention included an initial assessment to generate goals and a personalized action plan based on the individual’s risk factors, according to Ms. Salmon, along with an action plan that included one-on-one, behaviorally oriented, technology-enabled lifestyle health coaching focused on exercise and physical activity, weight management, and nutrition.
 

Key findings

With a mean follow-up of 145 days, weight loss in the obese group was greater than that of the overweight group, with mean BMI changes of –1.3 and –0.6, respectively, while there was no significant change in weight for the normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon.

By contrast, weekly aerobic activity increased significantly in all three groups, she added, with average increases of 95 minutes in the obese group, 98 minutes in the overweight group, and 77 minutes in the normal-weight group.

Likewise, significant decreases in FPG were seen in all 3 groups, with average changes of –6 mg/dL for the obese participants, –7 mg/dL for overweight participants, and –9 mg/dL for normal-weight participants, Ms. Salmon said.

The proportion of individuals whose FPG normalized was highest in the normal-weight group, at 62%, compared with 51.7% for overweight and 44% for obese individuals, she added.

Most previous studies of lifestyle interventions for prediabetes have excluded normal-weight individuals, according to Ms. Salmon, who said one strength of her study was that the subjects were already participating in the established lifestyle health coaching program and didn’t interact with the team of researchers.

“It was an effectiveness study in which we could see the real-world benefits of the program, rather than a theoretical efficacy study,” she said.

Ms. Salmon said she had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The coinvestigators of the study were members or employees of a privately held population health management company called INTERVENT International.

SOURCE: Salmon MK et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 273-OR.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of selinexor, a nuclear transport inhibitor, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Selinexor (marketed as XPOVIO by Karyopharm Therapeutics) is intended for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, according to the FDA’s announcement.

The FDA granted selinexor accelerated approval for this indication based on the response rate seen in the SADAL trial. Continued approval for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.

The SADAL trial (NCT02227251) was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label study of patients with DLBCL who had previously received two to five systemic regimens. The patients received selinexor at 60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week.

Results in 134 patients showed an overall response rate of 29% (95% confidence interval: 22-38), with complete responses in 13% of patients. Of 39 patients who achieved a partial or complete response, 38% had a response duration of at least 6 months, and 15% had a response duration of at least 12 months, according to the FDA announcement.

The most common adverse reactions in this trial were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, appetite decrease, weight decrease, constipation, vomiting, and pyrexia. Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 15% or more of the patients, and comprised thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and hyponatremia.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients, most often from infection. Gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 80% of patients, and any-grade hyponatremia occurred in 61%. Central neurological adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients, including dizziness and mental status changes, according to the announcement.

Warnings and precautions for adverse events – including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, hyponatremia, serious infection, neurological toxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity – are provided in the prescribing information.

Selinexor acts through the inhibition of exportin-1 and leads to an accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, a reduction in oncoproteins, and apoptosis of cancer cells. The drug was previously approved in 2019 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The SADAL trial was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Approval announcement.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of selinexor, a nuclear transport inhibitor, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Selinexor (marketed as XPOVIO by Karyopharm Therapeutics) is intended for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, according to the FDA’s announcement.

The FDA granted selinexor accelerated approval for this indication based on the response rate seen in the SADAL trial. Continued approval for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.

The SADAL trial (NCT02227251) was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label study of patients with DLBCL who had previously received two to five systemic regimens. The patients received selinexor at 60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week.

Results in 134 patients showed an overall response rate of 29% (95% confidence interval: 22-38), with complete responses in 13% of patients. Of 39 patients who achieved a partial or complete response, 38% had a response duration of at least 6 months, and 15% had a response duration of at least 12 months, according to the FDA announcement.

The most common adverse reactions in this trial were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, appetite decrease, weight decrease, constipation, vomiting, and pyrexia. Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 15% or more of the patients, and comprised thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and hyponatremia.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients, most often from infection. Gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 80% of patients, and any-grade hyponatremia occurred in 61%. Central neurological adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients, including dizziness and mental status changes, according to the announcement.

Warnings and precautions for adverse events – including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, hyponatremia, serious infection, neurological toxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity – are provided in the prescribing information.

Selinexor acts through the inhibition of exportin-1 and leads to an accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, a reduction in oncoproteins, and apoptosis of cancer cells. The drug was previously approved in 2019 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The SADAL trial was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Approval announcement.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of selinexor, a nuclear transport inhibitor, for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Selinexor (marketed as XPOVIO by Karyopharm Therapeutics) is intended for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, according to the FDA’s announcement.

The FDA granted selinexor accelerated approval for this indication based on the response rate seen in the SADAL trial. Continued approval for this indication “may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials,” according to the FDA.

The SADAL trial (NCT02227251) was a phase 2, single-arm, open-label study of patients with DLBCL who had previously received two to five systemic regimens. The patients received selinexor at 60 mg orally on days 1 and 3 of each week.

Results in 134 patients showed an overall response rate of 29% (95% confidence interval: 22-38), with complete responses in 13% of patients. Of 39 patients who achieved a partial or complete response, 38% had a response duration of at least 6 months, and 15% had a response duration of at least 12 months, according to the FDA announcement.

The most common adverse reactions in this trial were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, appetite decrease, weight decrease, constipation, vomiting, and pyrexia. Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities occurred in 15% or more of the patients, and comprised thrombocytopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia, anemia, and hyponatremia.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients, most often from infection. Gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 80% of patients, and any-grade hyponatremia occurred in 61%. Central neurological adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients, including dizziness and mental status changes, according to the announcement.

Warnings and precautions for adverse events – including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, hyponatremia, serious infection, neurological toxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity – are provided in the prescribing information.

Selinexor acts through the inhibition of exportin-1 and leads to an accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, a reduction in oncoproteins, and apoptosis of cancer cells. The drug was previously approved in 2019 for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The SADAL trial was sponsored by Karyopharm Therapeutics.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2020. Approval announcement.

Oxidative stress-related genetic variants, in particular, the SOD2 Val16Ala polymorphism, may represent a simple and inexpensive alternative for identifying patients at risk of stroke, according to Igor F. Domingos of the Genetics Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and colleagues.

The researchers genotyped 499 unrelated adult patients with sickle cell anemia (SCA) for a variety of polymorphisms, along with alpha-thalassemia status and beta-globin gene haplotypes.

They found that SOD2 Val16Ala polymorphism was independently associated with risk of stroke (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.32; P = .009) and with the long-term cumulative incidence of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P = .004).

A crucial limitation identified by the authors was the inability to replicate their results in a validation cohort. They suggested that there could have been genetic differences between the Brazilian population and the validation cohort of 231 patients followed at King’s College London for whom biological samples was available. They also suggested that patient treatment history between the two countries may be a factor.

“We believe that our study represents an alternative for understudied SCA populations with no access to TCD [transcranial Doppler ultrasound screening] and imaging exams, in which genetic modifiers may be a useful tool for predicting stroke in SCA,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Domingos IF et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Apr 16; doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2020.116839.

Oxidative stress-related genetic variants, in particular, the SOD2 Val16Ala polymorphism, may represent a simple and inexpensive alternative for identifying patients at risk of stroke, according to Igor F. Domingos of the Genetics Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and colleagues.

The researchers genotyped 499 unrelated adult patients with sickle cell anemia (SCA) for a variety of polymorphisms, along with alpha-thalassemia status and beta-globin gene haplotypes.

They found that SOD2 Val16Ala polymorphism was independently associated with risk of stroke (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.32; P = .009) and with the long-term cumulative incidence of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P = .004).

A crucial limitation identified by the authors was the inability to replicate their results in a validation cohort. They suggested that there could have been genetic differences between the Brazilian population and the validation cohort of 231 patients followed at King’s College London for whom biological samples was available. They also suggested that patient treatment history between the two countries may be a factor.

“We believe that our study represents an alternative for understudied SCA populations with no access to TCD [transcranial Doppler ultrasound screening] and imaging exams, in which genetic modifiers may be a useful tool for predicting stroke in SCA,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Domingos IF et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Apr 16; doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2020.116839.

Oxidative stress-related genetic variants, in particular, the SOD2 Val16Ala polymorphism, may represent a simple and inexpensive alternative for identifying patients at risk of stroke, according to Igor F. Domingos of the Genetics Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and colleagues.

The researchers genotyped 499 unrelated adult patients with sickle cell anemia (SCA) for a variety of polymorphisms, along with alpha-thalassemia status and beta-globin gene haplotypes.

They found that SOD2 Val16Ala polymorphism was independently associated with risk of stroke (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.32; P = .009) and with the long-term cumulative incidence of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P = .004).

A crucial limitation identified by the authors was the inability to replicate their results in a validation cohort. They suggested that there could have been genetic differences between the Brazilian population and the validation cohort of 231 patients followed at King’s College London for whom biological samples was available. They also suggested that patient treatment history between the two countries may be a factor.

“We believe that our study represents an alternative for understudied SCA populations with no access to TCD [transcranial Doppler ultrasound screening] and imaging exams, in which genetic modifiers may be a useful tool for predicting stroke in SCA,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported that they had no competing financial interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Domingos IF et al. J Neurol Sci. 2020 Apr 16; doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2020.116839.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

Patients with COVID-19 who have high levels of the steroid hormone cortisol on admission to hospital have a substantially increased risk of dying, U.K. researchers have discovered.

Waljit S. Dhillo, MBBS, PhD, head of the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at Imperial College London, and colleagues studied 535 patients admitted to major London hospitals. Their article was published online June 18 in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Our analyses show for the first time that patients with COVID-19 mount a marked and appropriate acute cortisol stress response,” said Dr. Dhillo and colleagues.

Moreover, “high cortisol concentrations were associated with increased mortality and a reduced median survival, probably because this is a marker of the severity of illness.”

So measuring cortisol on admission is potentially “another simple marker to use alongside oxygen saturation levels to help us identify which patients need to be admitted immediately, and which may not,” Dr. Dhillo noted in a statement from his institution.

“Having an early indicator of which patients may deteriorate more quickly will help us with providing the best level of care as quickly as possible. In addition, we can also take cortisol levels into account when we are working out how best to treat our patients,” he said.

However, it’s important to note that this means – particularly in the wake of the RECOVERY trial reported last week – that “in the early part of the disease you don’t need steroids,” he said.
 

In contrast to SARS, no adrenal insufficiency with COVID-19

Cortisol levels when healthy and resting are 100-200 nmol/L and nearly zero when sleeping, the researchers explained.

They decided to examine cortisol levels because, although physiological stress from critical illness normally increases levels of the hormone, the prior coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), had the opposite effect and induced cortisol insufficiency in some patients.

“We would have said we’re not quite sure” what effect SARS-CoV-2 is having on cortisol levels, “so that’s why we collected the data,” Dr. Dhillo said in an interview.

The researchers studied patients admitted to three large London teaching hospitals between March 9 and April 22 with a clinical suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients had a standard set of blood tests, including full blood count, creatinine, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and serum cortisol.

After exclusions, the team assessed 535 patients admitted over the study period who had baseline cortisol measured within 48 hours of admission.

Of these, 403 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on a positive result on real-time polymerase chain reaction testing (88%) or a strong clinical and radiological suspicion, despite a negative test (12%).

In total, 132 (25%) individuals were not diagnosed with COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 were a mean age of 66.3 years, and 59.6% were men.

Mean cortisol concentrations in patients with COVID-19 were significantly higher than those not diagnosed with the virus (619 vs 519 nmol/L; P < .0001).

And by May 8, significantly more patients with COVID-19 died than those without (27.8% vs 6.8%; P < .0001).

Doubling of cortisol levels associated with 40% higher mortality

Multivariate analysis taking into account age, presence of comorbidities, and laboratory tests revealed that a doubling of cortisol concentrations among those with COVID-19 was associated with a significant increase in mortality, at a hazard ratio of 1.42 (P = .014).

And patients with COVID-19 whose baseline cortisol level was >744 nmol/L had a median survival of just 15 days, compared with those with a level ≤744 nmol/L, who had a median survival of 36 days (P < .0001).

The team notes that the cortisol stress responses in their patients with COVID-19 ranged up to 3,241 nmol/L, which is “a marked cortisol stress response, perhaps higher than is observed in patients undergoing major surgery.”

Of interest, there was no interaction between cortisol levels and ethnicity in their study; a subsequent analysis of the data stratified by black, Asian, and other minority ethnicities revealed no significant differences.

The team note that their results will need to be reproduced in other populations.

“Any potential role for cortisol measurement at baseline and later during an inpatient stay with COVID-19 as a prognostic biomarker, either by itself or in combination with other biomarkers, will require validation in a prospective study.”
 

Implications for treatment: Reserve dexamethasone for critically ill

Dr. Dhillo explained that, because their findings indicate that people initially infected with COVID-19 do mount an appropriate stress (cortisol) response, it is important that people properly understand this in the wake of the RECOVERY trial, reported last week.

The trial showed that the widely available steroid dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit when given at a supraphysiologic dose of 6 mg.

But it would be hazardous for anyone to self-medicate with steroids at an early stage of COVID-19 because that would further increase cortisol levels and could suppress the immune system.

“For the average person on the street with COVID-19,” excess steroids will make their symptoms worse, Dr. Dhillo explained, adding this is important to emphasize because dexamethasone, and similar steroids, “are cheap and likely available on the Internet, and so misunderstanding of the RECOVERY trial could have serious implications.”

But once patients are very sick, with “inflammation in their lungs” and are in the intensive care unit, and often on ventilators – which is a very small subgroup of those with COVID-19 – it becomes a very different story, he stressed.

“RECOVERY shows clearly there seems to be a benefit once you need oxygen or are on a ventilator, and that makes sense because [dexamethasone] is going to be an anti-inflammatory,” in this instance when the “lungs are full of water.”

“But in the early days you definitely don’t need it and it could be harmful,” he reiterated.

The study is funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with COVID-19 who have high levels of the steroid hormone cortisol on admission to hospital have a substantially increased risk of dying, U.K. researchers have discovered.

Waljit S. Dhillo, MBBS, PhD, head of the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at Imperial College London, and colleagues studied 535 patients admitted to major London hospitals. Their article was published online June 18 in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Our analyses show for the first time that patients with COVID-19 mount a marked and appropriate acute cortisol stress response,” said Dr. Dhillo and colleagues.

Moreover, “high cortisol concentrations were associated with increased mortality and a reduced median survival, probably because this is a marker of the severity of illness.”

So measuring cortisol on admission is potentially “another simple marker to use alongside oxygen saturation levels to help us identify which patients need to be admitted immediately, and which may not,” Dr. Dhillo noted in a statement from his institution.

“Having an early indicator of which patients may deteriorate more quickly will help us with providing the best level of care as quickly as possible. In addition, we can also take cortisol levels into account when we are working out how best to treat our patients,” he said.

However, it’s important to note that this means – particularly in the wake of the RECOVERY trial reported last week – that “in the early part of the disease you don’t need steroids,” he said.
 

In contrast to SARS, no adrenal insufficiency with COVID-19

Cortisol levels when healthy and resting are 100-200 nmol/L and nearly zero when sleeping, the researchers explained.

They decided to examine cortisol levels because, although physiological stress from critical illness normally increases levels of the hormone, the prior coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), had the opposite effect and induced cortisol insufficiency in some patients.

“We would have said we’re not quite sure” what effect SARS-CoV-2 is having on cortisol levels, “so that’s why we collected the data,” Dr. Dhillo said in an interview.

The researchers studied patients admitted to three large London teaching hospitals between March 9 and April 22 with a clinical suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients had a standard set of blood tests, including full blood count, creatinine, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and serum cortisol.

After exclusions, the team assessed 535 patients admitted over the study period who had baseline cortisol measured within 48 hours of admission.

Of these, 403 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on a positive result on real-time polymerase chain reaction testing (88%) or a strong clinical and radiological suspicion, despite a negative test (12%).

In total, 132 (25%) individuals were not diagnosed with COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 were a mean age of 66.3 years, and 59.6% were men.

Mean cortisol concentrations in patients with COVID-19 were significantly higher than those not diagnosed with the virus (619 vs 519 nmol/L; P < .0001).

And by May 8, significantly more patients with COVID-19 died than those without (27.8% vs 6.8%; P < .0001).

Doubling of cortisol levels associated with 40% higher mortality

Multivariate analysis taking into account age, presence of comorbidities, and laboratory tests revealed that a doubling of cortisol concentrations among those with COVID-19 was associated with a significant increase in mortality, at a hazard ratio of 1.42 (P = .014).

And patients with COVID-19 whose baseline cortisol level was >744 nmol/L had a median survival of just 15 days, compared with those with a level ≤744 nmol/L, who had a median survival of 36 days (P < .0001).

The team notes that the cortisol stress responses in their patients with COVID-19 ranged up to 3,241 nmol/L, which is “a marked cortisol stress response, perhaps higher than is observed in patients undergoing major surgery.”

Of interest, there was no interaction between cortisol levels and ethnicity in their study; a subsequent analysis of the data stratified by black, Asian, and other minority ethnicities revealed no significant differences.

The team note that their results will need to be reproduced in other populations.

“Any potential role for cortisol measurement at baseline and later during an inpatient stay with COVID-19 as a prognostic biomarker, either by itself or in combination with other biomarkers, will require validation in a prospective study.”
 

Implications for treatment: Reserve dexamethasone for critically ill

Dr. Dhillo explained that, because their findings indicate that people initially infected with COVID-19 do mount an appropriate stress (cortisol) response, it is important that people properly understand this in the wake of the RECOVERY trial, reported last week.

The trial showed that the widely available steroid dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit when given at a supraphysiologic dose of 6 mg.

But it would be hazardous for anyone to self-medicate with steroids at an early stage of COVID-19 because that would further increase cortisol levels and could suppress the immune system.

“For the average person on the street with COVID-19,” excess steroids will make their symptoms worse, Dr. Dhillo explained, adding this is important to emphasize because dexamethasone, and similar steroids, “are cheap and likely available on the Internet, and so misunderstanding of the RECOVERY trial could have serious implications.”

But once patients are very sick, with “inflammation in their lungs” and are in the intensive care unit, and often on ventilators – which is a very small subgroup of those with COVID-19 – it becomes a very different story, he stressed.

“RECOVERY shows clearly there seems to be a benefit once you need oxygen or are on a ventilator, and that makes sense because [dexamethasone] is going to be an anti-inflammatory,” in this instance when the “lungs are full of water.”

“But in the early days you definitely don’t need it and it could be harmful,” he reiterated.

The study is funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with COVID-19 who have high levels of the steroid hormone cortisol on admission to hospital have a substantially increased risk of dying, U.K. researchers have discovered.

Waljit S. Dhillo, MBBS, PhD, head of the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at Imperial College London, and colleagues studied 535 patients admitted to major London hospitals. Their article was published online June 18 in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Our analyses show for the first time that patients with COVID-19 mount a marked and appropriate acute cortisol stress response,” said Dr. Dhillo and colleagues.

Moreover, “high cortisol concentrations were associated with increased mortality and a reduced median survival, probably because this is a marker of the severity of illness.”

So measuring cortisol on admission is potentially “another simple marker to use alongside oxygen saturation levels to help us identify which patients need to be admitted immediately, and which may not,” Dr. Dhillo noted in a statement from his institution.

“Having an early indicator of which patients may deteriorate more quickly will help us with providing the best level of care as quickly as possible. In addition, we can also take cortisol levels into account when we are working out how best to treat our patients,” he said.

However, it’s important to note that this means – particularly in the wake of the RECOVERY trial reported last week – that “in the early part of the disease you don’t need steroids,” he said.
 

In contrast to SARS, no adrenal insufficiency with COVID-19

Cortisol levels when healthy and resting are 100-200 nmol/L and nearly zero when sleeping, the researchers explained.

They decided to examine cortisol levels because, although physiological stress from critical illness normally increases levels of the hormone, the prior coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), had the opposite effect and induced cortisol insufficiency in some patients.

“We would have said we’re not quite sure” what effect SARS-CoV-2 is having on cortisol levels, “so that’s why we collected the data,” Dr. Dhillo said in an interview.

The researchers studied patients admitted to three large London teaching hospitals between March 9 and April 22 with a clinical suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients had a standard set of blood tests, including full blood count, creatinine, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and serum cortisol.

After exclusions, the team assessed 535 patients admitted over the study period who had baseline cortisol measured within 48 hours of admission.

Of these, 403 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on a positive result on real-time polymerase chain reaction testing (88%) or a strong clinical and radiological suspicion, despite a negative test (12%).

In total, 132 (25%) individuals were not diagnosed with COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 were a mean age of 66.3 years, and 59.6% were men.

Mean cortisol concentrations in patients with COVID-19 were significantly higher than those not diagnosed with the virus (619 vs 519 nmol/L; P < .0001).

And by May 8, significantly more patients with COVID-19 died than those without (27.8% vs 6.8%; P < .0001).

Doubling of cortisol levels associated with 40% higher mortality

Multivariate analysis taking into account age, presence of comorbidities, and laboratory tests revealed that a doubling of cortisol concentrations among those with COVID-19 was associated with a significant increase in mortality, at a hazard ratio of 1.42 (P = .014).

And patients with COVID-19 whose baseline cortisol level was >744 nmol/L had a median survival of just 15 days, compared with those with a level ≤744 nmol/L, who had a median survival of 36 days (P < .0001).

The team notes that the cortisol stress responses in their patients with COVID-19 ranged up to 3,241 nmol/L, which is “a marked cortisol stress response, perhaps higher than is observed in patients undergoing major surgery.”

Of interest, there was no interaction between cortisol levels and ethnicity in their study; a subsequent analysis of the data stratified by black, Asian, and other minority ethnicities revealed no significant differences.

The team note that their results will need to be reproduced in other populations.

“Any potential role for cortisol measurement at baseline and later during an inpatient stay with COVID-19 as a prognostic biomarker, either by itself or in combination with other biomarkers, will require validation in a prospective study.”
 

Implications for treatment: Reserve dexamethasone for critically ill

Dr. Dhillo explained that, because their findings indicate that people initially infected with COVID-19 do mount an appropriate stress (cortisol) response, it is important that people properly understand this in the wake of the RECOVERY trial, reported last week.

The trial showed that the widely available steroid dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit when given at a supraphysiologic dose of 6 mg.

But it would be hazardous for anyone to self-medicate with steroids at an early stage of COVID-19 because that would further increase cortisol levels and could suppress the immune system.

“For the average person on the street with COVID-19,” excess steroids will make their symptoms worse, Dr. Dhillo explained, adding this is important to emphasize because dexamethasone, and similar steroids, “are cheap and likely available on the Internet, and so misunderstanding of the RECOVERY trial could have serious implications.”

But once patients are very sick, with “inflammation in their lungs” and are in the intensive care unit, and often on ventilators – which is a very small subgroup of those with COVID-19 – it becomes a very different story, he stressed.

“RECOVERY shows clearly there seems to be a benefit once you need oxygen or are on a ventilator, and that makes sense because [dexamethasone] is going to be an anti-inflammatory,” in this instance when the “lungs are full of water.”

“But in the early days you definitely don’t need it and it could be harmful,” he reiterated.

The study is funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Setting the table for over 2 decades

I first met Larry in the spring of 1998 after I had made a presentation to the American College of Physicians’ Board of Regents on the Society for Hospital Medicine’s (then the National Association of Inpatient Physicians) new position statement that referral to hospitalists by primary care physicians should be voluntary. At the time, a number of managed care companies around the United States were compelling primary care physicians to use hospitalists to care for their hospitalized patients apparently because they felt hospitalists could do it more efficiently. SHM became the first professional society to voice the position which in turn was broadly endorsed by physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the ACP.

Larry sought me out, engaged with me, and handed me his business card. He seemed keen on becoming a part of the rapidly accelerating hospitalist movement and, in retrospect, putting his signature on it. He had recently built and exited from a very large and successful independent physician association during the heyday of California managed care and was eager for a new challenge.

Unlike me, who was just a few years out of residency, Larry was at the height of his professional powers, with the right blend of experience on the one hand and energy on the other to take on a project like SHM.

Larry’s first contribution came in the form of facilitating a 2-day strategic planning meeting with the SHM board in the fall of 1998. John Nelson, MD, had moved to Philadelphia for 3 months to establish the operational foundation of SHM and guide SHM’s first staff member, Angela Musial. One of the most notable achievements during that time was a strategic planning board meeting, which largely set the course for SHM’s early years. Larry was a taskmaster, forcing us to make tough choices about what we wanted to accomplish and to establish concrete goals with timelines and milestones. The adult supervision Larry brought was a new and vital thing for us.

There was a lot at stake in ’97, ‘98, and ‘99. The demand for hospitalists across the nation was skyrocketing and there was a strong need for leadership and bold direction. Academics, community-based hospitalists, pediatricians, entrepreneurs, nonphysician hospital team members, heads of organized medicine, and government and industry leaders were just some of the key stakeholders looking for a seat at the HM table. That table would go on to be set for some 2 decades by Larry Wellikson.

From the beginning, many observers remarked that SHM had established an aggressive agenda. There was an unrelenting need to erect a big tent as a home for diverse stakeholders. John and I and the SHM board were doing all we could to continue to build momentum while also leading our local hospitalist groups and trying to maintain a semblance of balance with our young families back home.

It was against this backdrop, in late 1999, while on yet another flight crisscrossing the country to promote HM and SHM, that John; Bob Wachter, MD (who had by that time replaced John and I as SHM president); and I decided we needed a full-time CEO. By that time, each of us had participated in conversations with Larry. We rapidly decided, with buy-in from the board, that we would offer Larry the position. He accepted and became CEO in January 2000.

To list here all of Larry’s accomplishments since taking the helm at SHM would be impossible. Indeed, all that SHM has achieved is closely tied to Larry. Instead, I would like to call out character traits Larry brought to SHM that are now part of SHM’s DNA and a large part of the reason SHM has been so successful over the past 20 years.


Solution oriented. SHM’s culture has always been to take conditions as they are and work to make things better. There is no place for excessively airing grievances and complaining about “what is being done to us.”

Eschewing the status quo. We can do better. There is too much that needs to be done to wait.

Appropriately irreverent of the norms of the medical establishment. Physicians are by nature careful, plodding, considered, cautious, and methodical. The velocity of change in HM called for a different approach in order to be relevant, one better characterized as the move-fast-and-break-things ethos of a Silicon Valley startup.

Bringing diverse stakeholders to the table. A signature move has been to assemble influential people to lay out the issues before setting a course of action.

Strong bias to action. There is a time to analyze and discuss, but all of this ultimately is in service of taking action to achieve a tangible result.

Working to achieve consensus to a point, then moving forward. Considerable resources have been put into bringing stakeholders together, studying problems, and gaining a common understanding of issues. But this has never been at the expense of taking bold action, even if controversial at times.

Involving industry in creative ways to the benefit of patients. SHM pioneered an approach to use resources gained through industry partnerships to perform national scale improvement activities with groups of hospitalist mentor-experts working with local teams to make care more reliable for patients.

Tirelessly connecting to frontline hospitalists. The lifeblood of SHM is frontline hospitalists. Larry has taken the time to develop relationships with as many as possible, often through personally visiting their communities.

Dr. Whitcomb is chief medical officer at Remedy Partners in Darien, Conn., and cofounder and past president of SHM.

Dynamism

By John Nelson, MD, MHM

You probably know a few people with a magnetic personality. Larry Wellikson is the neodymium variety. Boundless energy, confidence that he has the answer or knows exactly where to find it, and ability to instantly recall every conversation he’s had with you, are traits that have energized his years leading SHM and have led countless people to regard him as friend and mentor.

Watch him at the SHM annual conference. There he goes, fast walking to his next commitment while facing backward to complete from a growing distance the conversation with a person he just bumped into along the way. It is like this for Larry from 6 a.m. until midnight. Like Alexander Hamilton, “the man is nonstop.”

Bill Campbell was the “Trillion Dollar Coach” who had his own success as a business leader, but is best known for mentoring Steve Jobs, the Google founders, and many others who went on to become titans of tech. Larry is hospital medicine’s “Coach,” and has inspired and guided the careers of so many clinicians, administrators, and entrepreneurs in hospital medicine and health care more broadly.

The biggest difference between these two highly effective leaders and mentors might be money; SHM has paid him pretty well, but alas, no stock options.

Larry is a great storyteller, and it doesn’t take long for a conversation with him to arrive at the point where he cites the example of how issues faced by someone else have parallels to your situation, the advice he gave that person, and how things turned out. Mostly this advice is about navigating professional life, but he is also happy to share wisdom about parenting, marriage, money, and sports. And most any other topic.

Larry was very accomplished even prior to connecting with SHM. He had a thriving clinical career, and though he left practice long ago he has maintained a close connection with many people he first met when they were his patients. I was surprised years ago when he drove up a new top-of-the-line Lexus – the two-seater with the solid convertible roof that folded into the trunk with the push of a button. I expressed surprise that he’d buy such a swanky car and he explained that a former patient, now long-time friend, was a Lexus distributor and arranged for Larry to drive it away for something like the cost of a Camry.

He also had terrific success forming and leading a large California independent physician association prior to connecting with SHM. Just ask him to show you the magazine with him on the cover and a glowing article detailing his accomplishments. Seriously, ask him, there’s a good chance he’ll have a copy with him.

When Dr. Win Whitcomb and I were trying to figure out how to start a new medical society and position our field to mature into a real specialty we were lucky enough to connect with many health care leaders who we thought could help. Most tended to pat us on the shoulder and say something along the lines of “good luck with your little hobby, now I have to get back to my important work.” But here was Larry with his impressive resume, having served as one of the leaders who crafted the merger of two giant medical societies (ACP and the American Society of Internal Medicine), keenly interested in our tiny new organization, and excited to serve as facilitator for our first strategic planning session.

SHM got a turbocharger when Larry signed on. For me it has felt like speeding down a highway, top down, radio blasting great music, and happy anticipation of what is around the next corner. I have never been disappointed, and certainly don’t plan to get out of Larry’s car just because he’s retiring as CEO.

Dr. Nelson is cofounder and past president of SHM and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in La Quinta, Calif.

Setting the table for over 2 decades

I first met Larry in the spring of 1998 after I had made a presentation to the American College of Physicians’ Board of Regents on the Society for Hospital Medicine’s (then the National Association of Inpatient Physicians) new position statement that referral to hospitalists by primary care physicians should be voluntary. At the time, a number of managed care companies around the United States were compelling primary care physicians to use hospitalists to care for their hospitalized patients apparently because they felt hospitalists could do it more efficiently. SHM became the first professional society to voice the position which in turn was broadly endorsed by physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the ACP.

Larry sought me out, engaged with me, and handed me his business card. He seemed keen on becoming a part of the rapidly accelerating hospitalist movement and, in retrospect, putting his signature on it. He had recently built and exited from a very large and successful independent physician association during the heyday of California managed care and was eager for a new challenge.

Unlike me, who was just a few years out of residency, Larry was at the height of his professional powers, with the right blend of experience on the one hand and energy on the other to take on a project like SHM.

Larry’s first contribution came in the form of facilitating a 2-day strategic planning meeting with the SHM board in the fall of 1998. John Nelson, MD, had moved to Philadelphia for 3 months to establish the operational foundation of SHM and guide SHM’s first staff member, Angela Musial. One of the most notable achievements during that time was a strategic planning board meeting, which largely set the course for SHM’s early years. Larry was a taskmaster, forcing us to make tough choices about what we wanted to accomplish and to establish concrete goals with timelines and milestones. The adult supervision Larry brought was a new and vital thing for us.

There was a lot at stake in ’97, ‘98, and ‘99. The demand for hospitalists across the nation was skyrocketing and there was a strong need for leadership and bold direction. Academics, community-based hospitalists, pediatricians, entrepreneurs, nonphysician hospital team members, heads of organized medicine, and government and industry leaders were just some of the key stakeholders looking for a seat at the HM table. That table would go on to be set for some 2 decades by Larry Wellikson.

From the beginning, many observers remarked that SHM had established an aggressive agenda. There was an unrelenting need to erect a big tent as a home for diverse stakeholders. John and I and the SHM board were doing all we could to continue to build momentum while also leading our local hospitalist groups and trying to maintain a semblance of balance with our young families back home.

It was against this backdrop, in late 1999, while on yet another flight crisscrossing the country to promote HM and SHM, that John; Bob Wachter, MD (who had by that time replaced John and I as SHM president); and I decided we needed a full-time CEO. By that time, each of us had participated in conversations with Larry. We rapidly decided, with buy-in from the board, that we would offer Larry the position. He accepted and became CEO in January 2000.

To list here all of Larry’s accomplishments since taking the helm at SHM would be impossible. Indeed, all that SHM has achieved is closely tied to Larry. Instead, I would like to call out character traits Larry brought to SHM that are now part of SHM’s DNA and a large part of the reason SHM has been so successful over the past 20 years.


Solution oriented. SHM’s culture has always been to take conditions as they are and work to make things better. There is no place for excessively airing grievances and complaining about “what is being done to us.”

Eschewing the status quo. We can do better. There is too much that needs to be done to wait.

Appropriately irreverent of the norms of the medical establishment. Physicians are by nature careful, plodding, considered, cautious, and methodical. The velocity of change in HM called for a different approach in order to be relevant, one better characterized as the move-fast-and-break-things ethos of a Silicon Valley startup.

Bringing diverse stakeholders to the table. A signature move has been to assemble influential people to lay out the issues before setting a course of action.

Strong bias to action. There is a time to analyze and discuss, but all of this ultimately is in service of taking action to achieve a tangible result.

Working to achieve consensus to a point, then moving forward. Considerable resources have been put into bringing stakeholders together, studying problems, and gaining a common understanding of issues. But this has never been at the expense of taking bold action, even if controversial at times.

Involving industry in creative ways to the benefit of patients. SHM pioneered an approach to use resources gained through industry partnerships to perform national scale improvement activities with groups of hospitalist mentor-experts working with local teams to make care more reliable for patients.

Tirelessly connecting to frontline hospitalists. The lifeblood of SHM is frontline hospitalists. Larry has taken the time to develop relationships with as many as possible, often through personally visiting their communities.

Dr. Whitcomb is chief medical officer at Remedy Partners in Darien, Conn., and cofounder and past president of SHM.

Dynamism

By John Nelson, MD, MHM

You probably know a few people with a magnetic personality. Larry Wellikson is the neodymium variety. Boundless energy, confidence that he has the answer or knows exactly where to find it, and ability to instantly recall every conversation he’s had with you, are traits that have energized his years leading SHM and have led countless people to regard him as friend and mentor.

Watch him at the SHM annual conference. There he goes, fast walking to his next commitment while facing backward to complete from a growing distance the conversation with a person he just bumped into along the way. It is like this for Larry from 6 a.m. until midnight. Like Alexander Hamilton, “the man is nonstop.”

Bill Campbell was the “Trillion Dollar Coach” who had his own success as a business leader, but is best known for mentoring Steve Jobs, the Google founders, and many others who went on to become titans of tech. Larry is hospital medicine’s “Coach,” and has inspired and guided the careers of so many clinicians, administrators, and entrepreneurs in hospital medicine and health care more broadly.

The biggest difference between these two highly effective leaders and mentors might be money; SHM has paid him pretty well, but alas, no stock options.

Larry is a great storyteller, and it doesn’t take long for a conversation with him to arrive at the point where he cites the example of how issues faced by someone else have parallels to your situation, the advice he gave that person, and how things turned out. Mostly this advice is about navigating professional life, but he is also happy to share wisdom about parenting, marriage, money, and sports. And most any other topic.

Larry was very accomplished even prior to connecting with SHM. He had a thriving clinical career, and though he left practice long ago he has maintained a close connection with many people he first met when they were his patients. I was surprised years ago when he drove up a new top-of-the-line Lexus – the two-seater with the solid convertible roof that folded into the trunk with the push of a button. I expressed surprise that he’d buy such a swanky car and he explained that a former patient, now long-time friend, was a Lexus distributor and arranged for Larry to drive it away for something like the cost of a Camry.

He also had terrific success forming and leading a large California independent physician association prior to connecting with SHM. Just ask him to show you the magazine with him on the cover and a glowing article detailing his accomplishments. Seriously, ask him, there’s a good chance he’ll have a copy with him.

When Dr. Win Whitcomb and I were trying to figure out how to start a new medical society and position our field to mature into a real specialty we were lucky enough to connect with many health care leaders who we thought could help. Most tended to pat us on the shoulder and say something along the lines of “good luck with your little hobby, now I have to get back to my important work.” But here was Larry with his impressive resume, having served as one of the leaders who crafted the merger of two giant medical societies (ACP and the American Society of Internal Medicine), keenly interested in our tiny new organization, and excited to serve as facilitator for our first strategic planning session.

SHM got a turbocharger when Larry signed on. For me it has felt like speeding down a highway, top down, radio blasting great music, and happy anticipation of what is around the next corner. I have never been disappointed, and certainly don’t plan to get out of Larry’s car just because he’s retiring as CEO.

Dr. Nelson is cofounder and past president of SHM and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in La Quinta, Calif.

Setting the table for over 2 decades

I first met Larry in the spring of 1998 after I had made a presentation to the American College of Physicians’ Board of Regents on the Society for Hospital Medicine’s (then the National Association of Inpatient Physicians) new position statement that referral to hospitalists by primary care physicians should be voluntary. At the time, a number of managed care companies around the United States were compelling primary care physicians to use hospitalists to care for their hospitalized patients apparently because they felt hospitalists could do it more efficiently. SHM became the first professional society to voice the position which in turn was broadly endorsed by physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the ACP.

Larry sought me out, engaged with me, and handed me his business card. He seemed keen on becoming a part of the rapidly accelerating hospitalist movement and, in retrospect, putting his signature on it. He had recently built and exited from a very large and successful independent physician association during the heyday of California managed care and was eager for a new challenge.

Unlike me, who was just a few years out of residency, Larry was at the height of his professional powers, with the right blend of experience on the one hand and energy on the other to take on a project like SHM.

Larry’s first contribution came in the form of facilitating a 2-day strategic planning meeting with the SHM board in the fall of 1998. John Nelson, MD, had moved to Philadelphia for 3 months to establish the operational foundation of SHM and guide SHM’s first staff member, Angela Musial. One of the most notable achievements during that time was a strategic planning board meeting, which largely set the course for SHM’s early years. Larry was a taskmaster, forcing us to make tough choices about what we wanted to accomplish and to establish concrete goals with timelines and milestones. The adult supervision Larry brought was a new and vital thing for us.

There was a lot at stake in ’97, ‘98, and ‘99. The demand for hospitalists across the nation was skyrocketing and there was a strong need for leadership and bold direction. Academics, community-based hospitalists, pediatricians, entrepreneurs, nonphysician hospital team members, heads of organized medicine, and government and industry leaders were just some of the key stakeholders looking for a seat at the HM table. That table would go on to be set for some 2 decades by Larry Wellikson.

From the beginning, many observers remarked that SHM had established an aggressive agenda. There was an unrelenting need to erect a big tent as a home for diverse stakeholders. John and I and the SHM board were doing all we could to continue to build momentum while also leading our local hospitalist groups and trying to maintain a semblance of balance with our young families back home.

It was against this backdrop, in late 1999, while on yet another flight crisscrossing the country to promote HM and SHM, that John; Bob Wachter, MD (who had by that time replaced John and I as SHM president); and I decided we needed a full-time CEO. By that time, each of us had participated in conversations with Larry. We rapidly decided, with buy-in from the board, that we would offer Larry the position. He accepted and became CEO in January 2000.

To list here all of Larry’s accomplishments since taking the helm at SHM would be impossible. Indeed, all that SHM has achieved is closely tied to Larry. Instead, I would like to call out character traits Larry brought to SHM that are now part of SHM’s DNA and a large part of the reason SHM has been so successful over the past 20 years.


Solution oriented. SHM’s culture has always been to take conditions as they are and work to make things better. There is no place for excessively airing grievances and complaining about “what is being done to us.”

Eschewing the status quo. We can do better. There is too much that needs to be done to wait.

Appropriately irreverent of the norms of the medical establishment. Physicians are by nature careful, plodding, considered, cautious, and methodical. The velocity of change in HM called for a different approach in order to be relevant, one better characterized as the move-fast-and-break-things ethos of a Silicon Valley startup.

Bringing diverse stakeholders to the table. A signature move has been to assemble influential people to lay out the issues before setting a course of action.

Strong bias to action. There is a time to analyze and discuss, but all of this ultimately is in service of taking action to achieve a tangible result.

Working to achieve consensus to a point, then moving forward. Considerable resources have been put into bringing stakeholders together, studying problems, and gaining a common understanding of issues. But this has never been at the expense of taking bold action, even if controversial at times.

Involving industry in creative ways to the benefit of patients. SHM pioneered an approach to use resources gained through industry partnerships to perform national scale improvement activities with groups of hospitalist mentor-experts working with local teams to make care more reliable for patients.

Tirelessly connecting to frontline hospitalists. The lifeblood of SHM is frontline hospitalists. Larry has taken the time to develop relationships with as many as possible, often through personally visiting their communities.

Dr. Whitcomb is chief medical officer at Remedy Partners in Darien, Conn., and cofounder and past president of SHM.

Dynamism

By John Nelson, MD, MHM

You probably know a few people with a magnetic personality. Larry Wellikson is the neodymium variety. Boundless energy, confidence that he has the answer or knows exactly where to find it, and ability to instantly recall every conversation he’s had with you, are traits that have energized his years leading SHM and have led countless people to regard him as friend and mentor.

Watch him at the SHM annual conference. There he goes, fast walking to his next commitment while facing backward to complete from a growing distance the conversation with a person he just bumped into along the way. It is like this for Larry from 6 a.m. until midnight. Like Alexander Hamilton, “the man is nonstop.”

Bill Campbell was the “Trillion Dollar Coach” who had his own success as a business leader, but is best known for mentoring Steve Jobs, the Google founders, and many others who went on to become titans of tech. Larry is hospital medicine’s “Coach,” and has inspired and guided the careers of so many clinicians, administrators, and entrepreneurs in hospital medicine and health care more broadly.

The biggest difference between these two highly effective leaders and mentors might be money; SHM has paid him pretty well, but alas, no stock options.

Larry is a great storyteller, and it doesn’t take long for a conversation with him to arrive at the point where he cites the example of how issues faced by someone else have parallels to your situation, the advice he gave that person, and how things turned out. Mostly this advice is about navigating professional life, but he is also happy to share wisdom about parenting, marriage, money, and sports. And most any other topic.

Larry was very accomplished even prior to connecting with SHM. He had a thriving clinical career, and though he left practice long ago he has maintained a close connection with many people he first met when they were his patients. I was surprised years ago when he drove up a new top-of-the-line Lexus – the two-seater with the solid convertible roof that folded into the trunk with the push of a button. I expressed surprise that he’d buy such a swanky car and he explained that a former patient, now long-time friend, was a Lexus distributor and arranged for Larry to drive it away for something like the cost of a Camry.

He also had terrific success forming and leading a large California independent physician association prior to connecting with SHM. Just ask him to show you the magazine with him on the cover and a glowing article detailing his accomplishments. Seriously, ask him, there’s a good chance he’ll have a copy with him.

When Dr. Win Whitcomb and I were trying to figure out how to start a new medical society and position our field to mature into a real specialty we were lucky enough to connect with many health care leaders who we thought could help. Most tended to pat us on the shoulder and say something along the lines of “good luck with your little hobby, now I have to get back to my important work.” But here was Larry with his impressive resume, having served as one of the leaders who crafted the merger of two giant medical societies (ACP and the American Society of Internal Medicine), keenly interested in our tiny new organization, and excited to serve as facilitator for our first strategic planning session.

SHM got a turbocharger when Larry signed on. For me it has felt like speeding down a highway, top down, radio blasting great music, and happy anticipation of what is around the next corner. I have never been disappointed, and certainly don’t plan to get out of Larry’s car just because he’s retiring as CEO.

Dr. Nelson is cofounder and past president of SHM and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in La Quinta, Calif.