MDedge Endocrinology

“More is not necessarily better” when it comes to vitamin D supplements for women with adequate serum levels, new research suggests.

In a study of healthy 55- to 70-year-old women who took very-high-dose vitamin D supplements – either 4,000 IU/day or the previously identified “upper safe limit” of 10,000 IU/day – for 3 years had a significantly greater loss of total bone mineral density (BMD) at the radius and tibia than did women who took 400 IU/day. However, this effect was not seen in men. And the higher-dose vitamin D supplements did not improve bone strength in men or women.

But this was an exploratory post hoc analysis, and these were healthy community-dwelling adults with sufficient serum vitamin D levels (and no osteoporosis) at study entry, stressed lead researcher Lauren A. Burt, PhD, from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Burt presented these findings Sept. 11 at the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and the study was also recently published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The results suggest that, “if you have normal bone density and adequate levels of vitamin D, there is no bone benefit in taking doses of vitamin D above the standard recommendations designed to prevent vitamin D deficiency, and doses at or above 4,000 IU/day might even be detrimental to bone, especially in females,” Dr. Burt said in an interview.

“These results are clinically relevant,” Dr. Burt and her coauthors wrote, “as vitamin D supplementation is widely administered to postmenopausal females for osteoporosis prevention.”

“Our findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health and raise the possibility of harm for females.”

Invited to comment, Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that this finding “warrants further research” because it is “important” to discover sex differences in bone responses to vitamin D.
 

“This doesn’t apply to osteoporosis”

Dr. LeBoff was lead author of a subanalysis of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

As she reported at last year’s ASBMR meeting, that analysis showed that, in healthy adults who did not have vitamin D insufficiency, taking vitamin D3 supplements for 2 years did not improve BMD, compared with placebo (recently published), nor was this linked with fewer fractures. 

Dr. LeBoff pointed out that the current study investigated “very high doses of vitamin D” – at least double the 2,000 IU/day doses examined in VITAL.

Also, the serum vitamin D levels in this study were “above what we considered the upper normal limit for our assay in our hospital,” she noted, and there was no placebo control.

“We did not see any adverse effects of 2,000 IU/day vitamin D,” Dr. LeBoff stressed.

“At the same time, we didn’t see any significant benefits in terms of bone density because they already had achieved a normal level of vitamin D sufficient for bone.”

But “this doesn’t apply to patients with vitamin D deficiency, patients with osteoporosis, or low bone mass, in which case we would recommend vitamin D.”

Some patients take more vitamin D than they need because they think more is better, said LeBoff, but this study suggests “more is not necessarily better.”

“There’s been a concern for several years that too much vitamin D may be associated with increased fractures,” she emphasized.
 

Post hoc analysis

The current study analyzed new data from the Calgary Vitamin D study.

That study found no benefit in BMD or bone strength (JAMA. 2019;322[8]:736-45), contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that high-dose vitamin D supplements would be associated with greater calcium absorption and parathyroid hormone suppression and, thus, reduced age-related bone loss (improved bone density and strength).

Instead, they found a negative dose-response relationship, which “should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they wrote.

The current study sought to determine if there were sex differences in the effect of vitamin D supplements on bone health in this population.  

From October 2013 to December 2017, the Canada Vitamin D study enrolled 311 participants (53% male). To be eligible for the study, participants had to have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 30 nmol/L and less than 125 nmol/L. They also needed to have adequate calcium intake (1,200 mg/day, as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine), or if not, they were instructed to take an appropriate calcium supplement dose.

Patients were randomized to receive 400, 4,000, or 10,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol, given as 5 drops/day of liquid (Ddrops), with roughly 50 men and 50 women in each dose group.

Researchers selected the 400 IU/day dose as the comparator because the Institute of Medicine recommends a vitamin D intake of 600 IU/day for adults under age 70 years to provide the vitamin D needed for bone health. The typical Canadian diet includes 200-300 IU/day of vitamin D, so individuals would need a supplement of 400 IU/day to reach the recommended intake. The 4,000 IU/day dose is the recommended tolerable upper intake level, according to the Institute of Medicine. And the 10,000 IU/day dose is the tolerable upper intake level of vitamin D as identified in a review by Hathcock and colleagues (Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:6-18).

Participants underwent scans with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to measure total volumetric BMD at the radius and tibia at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Finite element analysis was used to estimate bone strength.

After 3 years, women had lost significantly more BMD at the radius after taking high-dose versus 400 IU/day of vitamin D. Losses in BMD at the tibia followed a similar trend but were smaller (Figure 1). There were no significant changes in this measure among men (Figure 2). 

There were also no significant changes in bone strength among men or women.

Biological mechanism remains to be determined

Dr. LeBoff said a “possible biological explanation” for the findings is that “women, particularly when they are younger, lose more bone than men.”

“Postmenopausal females do lose bone at an accelerated rate compared with males,” Dr. Burt agreed, “but at the time the study was designed, there was no reason to believe that high-dose vitamin D supplementation would accelerate the problem.”

“The biological mechanism of the vitamin D–related bone loss needs further investigation,” Dr. Burt added, “but there are laboratory data suggesting that supraphysiologic doses of active metabolites of vitamin D may stimulate bone resorption.”

The study was funded by the Pure North S’Energy Foundation. Dr. Burt has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. LeBoff has reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the VITAL analysis.
 

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

“More is not necessarily better” when it comes to vitamin D supplements for women with adequate serum levels, new research suggests.

In a study of healthy 55- to 70-year-old women who took very-high-dose vitamin D supplements – either 4,000 IU/day or the previously identified “upper safe limit” of 10,000 IU/day – for 3 years had a significantly greater loss of total bone mineral density (BMD) at the radius and tibia than did women who took 400 IU/day. However, this effect was not seen in men. And the higher-dose vitamin D supplements did not improve bone strength in men or women.

But this was an exploratory post hoc analysis, and these were healthy community-dwelling adults with sufficient serum vitamin D levels (and no osteoporosis) at study entry, stressed lead researcher Lauren A. Burt, PhD, from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Burt presented these findings Sept. 11 at the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and the study was also recently published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The results suggest that, “if you have normal bone density and adequate levels of vitamin D, there is no bone benefit in taking doses of vitamin D above the standard recommendations designed to prevent vitamin D deficiency, and doses at or above 4,000 IU/day might even be detrimental to bone, especially in females,” Dr. Burt said in an interview.

“These results are clinically relevant,” Dr. Burt and her coauthors wrote, “as vitamin D supplementation is widely administered to postmenopausal females for osteoporosis prevention.”

“Our findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health and raise the possibility of harm for females.”

Invited to comment, Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that this finding “warrants further research” because it is “important” to discover sex differences in bone responses to vitamin D.
 

“This doesn’t apply to osteoporosis”

Dr. LeBoff was lead author of a subanalysis of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

As she reported at last year’s ASBMR meeting, that analysis showed that, in healthy adults who did not have vitamin D insufficiency, taking vitamin D3 supplements for 2 years did not improve BMD, compared with placebo (recently published), nor was this linked with fewer fractures. 

Dr. LeBoff pointed out that the current study investigated “very high doses of vitamin D” – at least double the 2,000 IU/day doses examined in VITAL.

Also, the serum vitamin D levels in this study were “above what we considered the upper normal limit for our assay in our hospital,” she noted, and there was no placebo control.

“We did not see any adverse effects of 2,000 IU/day vitamin D,” Dr. LeBoff stressed.

“At the same time, we didn’t see any significant benefits in terms of bone density because they already had achieved a normal level of vitamin D sufficient for bone.”

But “this doesn’t apply to patients with vitamin D deficiency, patients with osteoporosis, or low bone mass, in which case we would recommend vitamin D.”

Some patients take more vitamin D than they need because they think more is better, said LeBoff, but this study suggests “more is not necessarily better.”

“There’s been a concern for several years that too much vitamin D may be associated with increased fractures,” she emphasized.
 

Post hoc analysis

The current study analyzed new data from the Calgary Vitamin D study.

That study found no benefit in BMD or bone strength (JAMA. 2019;322[8]:736-45), contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that high-dose vitamin D supplements would be associated with greater calcium absorption and parathyroid hormone suppression and, thus, reduced age-related bone loss (improved bone density and strength).

Instead, they found a negative dose-response relationship, which “should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they wrote.

The current study sought to determine if there were sex differences in the effect of vitamin D supplements on bone health in this population.  

From October 2013 to December 2017, the Canada Vitamin D study enrolled 311 participants (53% male). To be eligible for the study, participants had to have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 30 nmol/L and less than 125 nmol/L. They also needed to have adequate calcium intake (1,200 mg/day, as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine), or if not, they were instructed to take an appropriate calcium supplement dose.

Patients were randomized to receive 400, 4,000, or 10,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol, given as 5 drops/day of liquid (Ddrops), with roughly 50 men and 50 women in each dose group.

Researchers selected the 400 IU/day dose as the comparator because the Institute of Medicine recommends a vitamin D intake of 600 IU/day for adults under age 70 years to provide the vitamin D needed for bone health. The typical Canadian diet includes 200-300 IU/day of vitamin D, so individuals would need a supplement of 400 IU/day to reach the recommended intake. The 4,000 IU/day dose is the recommended tolerable upper intake level, according to the Institute of Medicine. And the 10,000 IU/day dose is the tolerable upper intake level of vitamin D as identified in a review by Hathcock and colleagues (Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:6-18).

Participants underwent scans with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to measure total volumetric BMD at the radius and tibia at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Finite element analysis was used to estimate bone strength.

After 3 years, women had lost significantly more BMD at the radius after taking high-dose versus 400 IU/day of vitamin D. Losses in BMD at the tibia followed a similar trend but were smaller (Figure 1). There were no significant changes in this measure among men (Figure 2). 

There were also no significant changes in bone strength among men or women.

Biological mechanism remains to be determined

Dr. LeBoff said a “possible biological explanation” for the findings is that “women, particularly when they are younger, lose more bone than men.”

“Postmenopausal females do lose bone at an accelerated rate compared with males,” Dr. Burt agreed, “but at the time the study was designed, there was no reason to believe that high-dose vitamin D supplementation would accelerate the problem.”

“The biological mechanism of the vitamin D–related bone loss needs further investigation,” Dr. Burt added, “but there are laboratory data suggesting that supraphysiologic doses of active metabolites of vitamin D may stimulate bone resorption.”

The study was funded by the Pure North S’Energy Foundation. Dr. Burt has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. LeBoff has reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the VITAL analysis.
 

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

“More is not necessarily better” when it comes to vitamin D supplements for women with adequate serum levels, new research suggests.

In a study of healthy 55- to 70-year-old women who took very-high-dose vitamin D supplements – either 4,000 IU/day or the previously identified “upper safe limit” of 10,000 IU/day – for 3 years had a significantly greater loss of total bone mineral density (BMD) at the radius and tibia than did women who took 400 IU/day. However, this effect was not seen in men. And the higher-dose vitamin D supplements did not improve bone strength in men or women.

But this was an exploratory post hoc analysis, and these were healthy community-dwelling adults with sufficient serum vitamin D levels (and no osteoporosis) at study entry, stressed lead researcher Lauren A. Burt, PhD, from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Burt presented these findings Sept. 11 at the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and the study was also recently published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The results suggest that, “if you have normal bone density and adequate levels of vitamin D, there is no bone benefit in taking doses of vitamin D above the standard recommendations designed to prevent vitamin D deficiency, and doses at or above 4,000 IU/day might even be detrimental to bone, especially in females,” Dr. Burt said in an interview.

“These results are clinically relevant,” Dr. Burt and her coauthors wrote, “as vitamin D supplementation is widely administered to postmenopausal females for osteoporosis prevention.”

“Our findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health and raise the possibility of harm for females.”

Invited to comment, Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that this finding “warrants further research” because it is “important” to discover sex differences in bone responses to vitamin D.
 

“This doesn’t apply to osteoporosis”

Dr. LeBoff was lead author of a subanalysis of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

As she reported at last year’s ASBMR meeting, that analysis showed that, in healthy adults who did not have vitamin D insufficiency, taking vitamin D3 supplements for 2 years did not improve BMD, compared with placebo (recently published), nor was this linked with fewer fractures. 

Dr. LeBoff pointed out that the current study investigated “very high doses of vitamin D” – at least double the 2,000 IU/day doses examined in VITAL.

Also, the serum vitamin D levels in this study were “above what we considered the upper normal limit for our assay in our hospital,” she noted, and there was no placebo control.

“We did not see any adverse effects of 2,000 IU/day vitamin D,” Dr. LeBoff stressed.

“At the same time, we didn’t see any significant benefits in terms of bone density because they already had achieved a normal level of vitamin D sufficient for bone.”

But “this doesn’t apply to patients with vitamin D deficiency, patients with osteoporosis, or low bone mass, in which case we would recommend vitamin D.”

Some patients take more vitamin D than they need because they think more is better, said LeBoff, but this study suggests “more is not necessarily better.”

“There’s been a concern for several years that too much vitamin D may be associated with increased fractures,” she emphasized.
 

Post hoc analysis

The current study analyzed new data from the Calgary Vitamin D study.

That study found no benefit in BMD or bone strength (JAMA. 2019;322[8]:736-45), contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that high-dose vitamin D supplements would be associated with greater calcium absorption and parathyroid hormone suppression and, thus, reduced age-related bone loss (improved bone density and strength).

Instead, they found a negative dose-response relationship, which “should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they wrote.

The current study sought to determine if there were sex differences in the effect of vitamin D supplements on bone health in this population.  

From October 2013 to December 2017, the Canada Vitamin D study enrolled 311 participants (53% male). To be eligible for the study, participants had to have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 30 nmol/L and less than 125 nmol/L. They also needed to have adequate calcium intake (1,200 mg/day, as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine), or if not, they were instructed to take an appropriate calcium supplement dose.

Patients were randomized to receive 400, 4,000, or 10,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol, given as 5 drops/day of liquid (Ddrops), with roughly 50 men and 50 women in each dose group.

Researchers selected the 400 IU/day dose as the comparator because the Institute of Medicine recommends a vitamin D intake of 600 IU/day for adults under age 70 years to provide the vitamin D needed for bone health. The typical Canadian diet includes 200-300 IU/day of vitamin D, so individuals would need a supplement of 400 IU/day to reach the recommended intake. The 4,000 IU/day dose is the recommended tolerable upper intake level, according to the Institute of Medicine. And the 10,000 IU/day dose is the tolerable upper intake level of vitamin D as identified in a review by Hathcock and colleagues (Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:6-18).

Participants underwent scans with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to measure total volumetric BMD at the radius and tibia at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Finite element analysis was used to estimate bone strength.

After 3 years, women had lost significantly more BMD at the radius after taking high-dose versus 400 IU/day of vitamin D. Losses in BMD at the tibia followed a similar trend but were smaller (Figure 1). There were no significant changes in this measure among men (Figure 2). 

There were also no significant changes in bone strength among men or women.

Biological mechanism remains to be determined

Dr. LeBoff said a “possible biological explanation” for the findings is that “women, particularly when they are younger, lose more bone than men.”

“Postmenopausal females do lose bone at an accelerated rate compared with males,” Dr. Burt agreed, “but at the time the study was designed, there was no reason to believe that high-dose vitamin D supplementation would accelerate the problem.”

“The biological mechanism of the vitamin D–related bone loss needs further investigation,” Dr. Burt added, “but there are laboratory data suggesting that supraphysiologic doses of active metabolites of vitamin D may stimulate bone resorption.”

The study was funded by the Pure North S’Energy Foundation. Dr. Burt has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. LeBoff has reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the VITAL analysis.
 

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

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, researchers detected active and prolonged infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of people with confirmed COVID-19. Stool tests were positive among people with no GI symptoms, and in some cases up to 6 days after nasopharyngeal swabs yielded negative results.

The small pilot study suggests a quiescent but active infection in the gut. Stool testing revealed genomic evidence of active infection in 7 of the 15 participants tested in one of two hospitals in Hong Kong.

“We found active and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection in the stool of patients with COVID-19, even after recovery, suggesting that coronavirus could remain in the gut of asymptomatic carriers,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“Due to the potential threat of fecal-oral transmission, it is important to maintain long-term coronavirus and health surveillance,” said Ng, Associate Director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

“Discharged patients and their caretakers should remain vigilant and observe strict personal and toileting hygiene,” she added.

The prospective, observational study was published online July 20 in Gut.
 

Ramping up COVID-19 testing

As a follow-up to these and other findings – including the testing of more than 2,000 stool samples in children and the needy arriving at Hong Kong airports starting March 29 – the same investigators are establishing a CUHK Coronavirus Testing Center.

As of Aug. 31, the detection rate in tested children was 0.28%. The Center plans to offer as many as 2,000 COVID-19 tests daily going forward to help identify asymptomatic carriers, the investigators announced in a Sept. 7 news release.

In contrast to nasopharyngeal sampling, stool specimens are “more convenient, safe and non-invasive to collect in the pediatric population,” professor Paul Chan, chairman of the Department of Microbiology, CU Medicine, said in the release. “This makes the stool test a better option for COVID-19 screening in babies, young children and those whose respiratory samples are difficult to collect.”

Even though previous researchers identified SARS-CoV-2 in the stool, the activity and infectivity of the virus in the gastrointestinal tract during and after COVID-19 respiratory positivity remained largely unknown.
 

Active infection detected in stool

This prospective study involved 15 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in March and April. Participants were a median 55 years old (range, 22-71 years) and all presented with respiratory symptoms. Only one patient had concurrent GI symptoms at admission. Median length of stay was 21 days.

Investigators collected fecal samples serially until discharge. They extracted viral DNA to test for transcriptional genetic evidence of active infection, which they detected in 7 of 15 patients. The patient with GI symptoms was not in this positive group.

The findings suggest a “quiescent but active GI infection,” the researchers note.

Three of the seven patients continued to test positive for active infection in their stool up to 6 days after respiratory clearance of SARS-CoV-2.
 

Microbiome matters

The investigators also extracted, amplified, and sequenced DNA from the stool samples. Their “metagenomic” profile revealed the type and amounts of bacterial strains in each patient’s gut microbiome.

Interestingly, bacterial strains differed between people with high SARS-CoV-2 infectivity versus participants with low to no evidence of active infection.

“Stool with high viral activity had higher abundance of pathogenic bacteria,” Ng said. In contrast, people with low or no infectivity had more beneficial bacterial strains, including bacteria that play critical roles in boosting host immunity.

Each patient’s microbiome composition changed during the course of the study. Whether the microbiome alters the course of COVID-19 or COVID-19 alters the composition of the microbiome requires further study, the authors note.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and officials in other countries have contacted the Hong Kong investigators for more details on their stool testing strategy, professor Francis K.L. Chan, dean of the faculty of medicine and director of the Centre for Gut Microbiota Research at CUHK, stated in the news release.

Further research into revealing the infectivity and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in the GI tract is warranted. The value of modulating the human gut microbiome in this patient population could be worthwhile to investigate as well, the researchers said.
 

Novel finding

“Some of it is not-so-new news and some is new,” David A. Johnson, MD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

For example, previous researchers have detected SARS-CoV-2 virus in the stool. However, this study takes it a step further and shows that the virus present in stool can remain infectious on the basis of metagenomic signatures.

Furthermore, the virus can remain infectious in the gut even after a patient tests negative for COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal sampling – in this report up to 6 days later, said Johnson, professor of medicine, chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va.

The study carries important implications for people who currently test negative following active COVID-19 infection, he added. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria clear a person as negative after two nasopharyngeal swabs at least 24 hours apart.

People in this category could believe they are no longer infectious and might return to a setting where they could infect others, Johnson said.

One potential means for spreading SARS-CoV-2 from the gut is from a toilet plume, as Johnson previously highlighted in a video report for Medscape Medical News.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Johnson serves as an adviser to WebMD/Medscape.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery resolved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) without worsening fibrosis in 84% of patients with evaluable biopsies, according to the findings of a prospective study.

The study included 180 severely or morbidly obese adults (body mass index >35 kg/m²) with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery at a center in France. Among 94 patients evaluated 5 years later, 68% had follow-up liver biopsies, of whom 84% (95% confidence interval, 73.1%-92.2%) met the primary endpoint of resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. All histologic aspects of NASH had improved, median nonalcoholic fatty liver disease scores (NAS) fell from 5 (interquartile range, 4 to 5) to 1 (IQR, 0-2; P < .001), and 90% of patients achieved at least a 2-point NAS improvement. Hepatocellular ballooning also improved in 87.5% of patients. Baseline severity of NASH did not affect the chances of it resolving at 5 years. “The reduction of fibrosis [was] progressive, beginning during the first year and continuing through 5 years,” Guillaume Lassailly, MD, and associates wrote in Gastroenterology.

NASH is a priority for clinical research because of the substantial risk for subsequent cirrhosis, added Dr. Lassailly of CHU Lille (France). For NASH to resolve, most patients need to lose at least 7%-10% of their body weight, but “only 10% of patients reach this objective with lifestyle therapy at 1 year, and less than half maintain the weight loss 5 years later.” Despite ongoing drug development efforts, no medications have been approved for treating NASH. Although weight loss after bariatric surgery has been reported to resolve NASH in approximately 80% of patients at 1 year, longer-term data have been unavailable, and it has remained unclear whether bariatric surgery can slow or halt fibrosis progression.

All patients in this study had biopsy-confirmed NASH and at least a 5-year history of severe or morbid obesity as well as at least one comorbidity, such as diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension. Patients were not heavy drinkers, and none had detectable markers of chronic liver disease.

Bariatric surgery produced a median 12-kg/m² drop in body mass index. At 5-year follow-up, 93% of patients meeting or exceeding this threshold who had biopsies performed showed resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. Furthermore, 56% of patients (95% CI, 42.4%-69.3%) had no histologic evidence of fibrosis, including 45.5% of patients who had bridging fibrosis at baseline.

Participants in this study received intensive preoperative support, including evaluations by numerous specialists, a nutrition plan, and a 6- to 12-month therapeutic education program. Bariatric surgery techniques included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy. A subgroup analysis linked gastric bypass to a significantly higher probability of meeting the primary endpoint, compared with gastric banding. Refusal was the most common reason for not having a follow-up biopsy, the researchers said. “Patients without liver biopsy after bariatric surgery were not significantly different from those with a histological follow-up except for a lower BMI at 1 year. Baseline fibrosis did not influence the probability of undergoing histological reevaluation at 5 years.”

Two study participants died from surgical complications within 1 month after surgery, and one patient died from cardiac dysfunction 4 years later. No fatality was deemed liver related.

The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health, Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, National de la Recherche, and the European commission (FEDER). The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lassailly G et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.006.

Bariatric surgery resolved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) without worsening fibrosis in 84% of patients with evaluable biopsies, according to the findings of a prospective study.

The study included 180 severely or morbidly obese adults (body mass index >35 kg/m²) with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery at a center in France. Among 94 patients evaluated 5 years later, 68% had follow-up liver biopsies, of whom 84% (95% confidence interval, 73.1%-92.2%) met the primary endpoint of resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. All histologic aspects of NASH had improved, median nonalcoholic fatty liver disease scores (NAS) fell from 5 (interquartile range, 4 to 5) to 1 (IQR, 0-2; P < .001), and 90% of patients achieved at least a 2-point NAS improvement. Hepatocellular ballooning also improved in 87.5% of patients. Baseline severity of NASH did not affect the chances of it resolving at 5 years. “The reduction of fibrosis [was] progressive, beginning during the first year and continuing through 5 years,” Guillaume Lassailly, MD, and associates wrote in Gastroenterology.

NASH is a priority for clinical research because of the substantial risk for subsequent cirrhosis, added Dr. Lassailly of CHU Lille (France). For NASH to resolve, most patients need to lose at least 7%-10% of their body weight, but “only 10% of patients reach this objective with lifestyle therapy at 1 year, and less than half maintain the weight loss 5 years later.” Despite ongoing drug development efforts, no medications have been approved for treating NASH. Although weight loss after bariatric surgery has been reported to resolve NASH in approximately 80% of patients at 1 year, longer-term data have been unavailable, and it has remained unclear whether bariatric surgery can slow or halt fibrosis progression.

All patients in this study had biopsy-confirmed NASH and at least a 5-year history of severe or morbid obesity as well as at least one comorbidity, such as diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension. Patients were not heavy drinkers, and none had detectable markers of chronic liver disease.

Bariatric surgery produced a median 12-kg/m² drop in body mass index. At 5-year follow-up, 93% of patients meeting or exceeding this threshold who had biopsies performed showed resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. Furthermore, 56% of patients (95% CI, 42.4%-69.3%) had no histologic evidence of fibrosis, including 45.5% of patients who had bridging fibrosis at baseline.

Participants in this study received intensive preoperative support, including evaluations by numerous specialists, a nutrition plan, and a 6- to 12-month therapeutic education program. Bariatric surgery techniques included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy. A subgroup analysis linked gastric bypass to a significantly higher probability of meeting the primary endpoint, compared with gastric banding. Refusal was the most common reason for not having a follow-up biopsy, the researchers said. “Patients without liver biopsy after bariatric surgery were not significantly different from those with a histological follow-up except for a lower BMI at 1 year. Baseline fibrosis did not influence the probability of undergoing histological reevaluation at 5 years.”

Two study participants died from surgical complications within 1 month after surgery, and one patient died from cardiac dysfunction 4 years later. No fatality was deemed liver related.

The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health, Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, National de la Recherche, and the European commission (FEDER). The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lassailly G et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.006.

Bariatric surgery resolved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) without worsening fibrosis in 84% of patients with evaluable biopsies, according to the findings of a prospective study.

The study included 180 severely or morbidly obese adults (body mass index >35 kg/m²) with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery at a center in France. Among 94 patients evaluated 5 years later, 68% had follow-up liver biopsies, of whom 84% (95% confidence interval, 73.1%-92.2%) met the primary endpoint of resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. All histologic aspects of NASH had improved, median nonalcoholic fatty liver disease scores (NAS) fell from 5 (interquartile range, 4 to 5) to 1 (IQR, 0-2; P < .001), and 90% of patients achieved at least a 2-point NAS improvement. Hepatocellular ballooning also improved in 87.5% of patients. Baseline severity of NASH did not affect the chances of it resolving at 5 years. “The reduction of fibrosis [was] progressive, beginning during the first year and continuing through 5 years,” Guillaume Lassailly, MD, and associates wrote in Gastroenterology.

NASH is a priority for clinical research because of the substantial risk for subsequent cirrhosis, added Dr. Lassailly of CHU Lille (France). For NASH to resolve, most patients need to lose at least 7%-10% of their body weight, but “only 10% of patients reach this objective with lifestyle therapy at 1 year, and less than half maintain the weight loss 5 years later.” Despite ongoing drug development efforts, no medications have been approved for treating NASH. Although weight loss after bariatric surgery has been reported to resolve NASH in approximately 80% of patients at 1 year, longer-term data have been unavailable, and it has remained unclear whether bariatric surgery can slow or halt fibrosis progression.

All patients in this study had biopsy-confirmed NASH and at least a 5-year history of severe or morbid obesity as well as at least one comorbidity, such as diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension. Patients were not heavy drinkers, and none had detectable markers of chronic liver disease.

Bariatric surgery produced a median 12-kg/m² drop in body mass index. At 5-year follow-up, 93% of patients meeting or exceeding this threshold who had biopsies performed showed resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis. Furthermore, 56% of patients (95% CI, 42.4%-69.3%) had no histologic evidence of fibrosis, including 45.5% of patients who had bridging fibrosis at baseline.

Participants in this study received intensive preoperative support, including evaluations by numerous specialists, a nutrition plan, and a 6- to 12-month therapeutic education program. Bariatric surgery techniques included Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy. A subgroup analysis linked gastric bypass to a significantly higher probability of meeting the primary endpoint, compared with gastric banding. Refusal was the most common reason for not having a follow-up biopsy, the researchers said. “Patients without liver biopsy after bariatric surgery were not significantly different from those with a histological follow-up except for a lower BMI at 1 year. Baseline fibrosis did not influence the probability of undergoing histological reevaluation at 5 years.”

Two study participants died from surgical complications within 1 month after surgery, and one patient died from cardiac dysfunction 4 years later. No fatality was deemed liver related.

The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health, Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, National de la Recherche, and the European commission (FEDER). The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lassailly G et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.006.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals are more worried about family members becoming ill with COVID-19 or about unknowingly transmitting the disease to family members than they are about contracting it themselves, results of a new survey show.

Investigators surveyed over 3,000 adults, using an online questionnaire. Of the respondents, about 20% were health care workers, and most were living in locations with active stay-at-home orders at the time of the survey.

Interactive platform

“The pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to study resilience in healthcare professionals and others,” said Barzilay, assistant professor at the Lifespan Brain Institute, a collaboration between CHOP and the University of Pennsylvania, under the directorship of Raquel Gur, MD, PhD.

“After the pandemic broke out in March, we launched a website in early April where we surveyed people for levels of resilience, mental health, and well-being during the outbreak,” he added.

Tend and befriend

Ten days into the survey, data were available on 3,042 participants (64% women, 54% with advanced education, 20.5% health care providers), who ranged in age from 18 to 70 years (mean [SD], 38.9 [11.9] years).

After accounting for covariates, the researchers found that participants reported more distress about family members contracting COVID-19 and about unknowingly infecting others than about getting COVID-19 themselves (48.5% and 36% vs. 19.9%, respectively; P < .0005).

Increased COVID-19-related worries were associated with 22% higher anxiety and 16.1% higher depression scores; women had higher scores than men on both.

Each 1-SD increase in the composite score of COVID-19 worries was associated with over twice the increased probability of generalized anxiety and depression (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-2.65; and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41-1.98, respectively; for both, P < .001).

On the other hand, for every 1-SD increase in the resilience score, there was a 64.9% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for generalized anxiety disorder and a 69.3% decrease in the possibility of screening positive for depression (for both, P < .0001).

Compared to participants from Israel, US participants were “more stressed” about contracting, dying from, and currently having COVID-19 themselves. Overall, Israeli participants scored higher than US participants on the resilience scale.

Rates of anxiety and depression did not differ significantly between healthcare providers and others. Health care providers worried more about contracting COVID-19 themselves and worried less about finances after COVID-19.

The authors propose that survey participants were more worried about others than about themselves because of “prosocial behavior under stress” and “tend-and-befriend,” whereby, “in response to threat, humans tend to protect their close ones (tending) and seek out their social group for mutual defense (befriending).”

This type of altruistic behavior has been “described in acute situations throughout history” and has been “linked to mechanisms of resilience for overcoming adversity,” the authors indicate.
 

Demographic biases

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Golnaz Tabibnia, PhD, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the research, suggested that although higher resilience scores were associated with lower COVID-related worries, it is possible, “as the authors suggest, that having more resilience resources makes you less worried, but the causality could go the other direction as well, and less worry/rumination may lead to more resilience.”

Also commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Christiaan Vinkers, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said it was noteworthy that healthcare providers reported similar levels of mood and anxiety symptoms, compared to others.

“This is encouraging, as it suggests adequate resilience levels in professionals who work in the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said.

Resilience occurs not only at the individual level but also at the community level, which may help explain the striking differences in COVID-19-related worries and anxiety between participants from the United States and Israel, Vinkers added.

E. Alison Holman, PhD, professor, Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing, University of California, Irvine, noted that respondents were predominantly white, female, and had relatively high incomes, “suggesting strong demographic biases in those who chose to participate.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code looks ahead to future use

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code looks ahead to future use

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Code looks ahead to future use

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information is available on the AMA website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sequential osteoporosis treatment a recurring theme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bone cancer ultimately damages other tissues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI, bench to bedside research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare disease, fragility fractures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sequential osteoporosis treatment a recurring theme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bone cancer ultimately damages other tissues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI, bench to bedside research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare disease, fragility fractures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sequential osteoporosis treatment a recurring theme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bone cancer ultimately damages other tissues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI, bench to bedside research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rare disease, fragility fractures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large database of half a million people with obesity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea showed greatest risk reductions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response of type 2 diabetes to weight loss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large database of half a million people with obesity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea showed greatest risk reductions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response of type 2 diabetes to weight loss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large database of half a million people with obesity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea showed greatest risk reductions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response of type 2 diabetes to weight loss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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