MDedge Pediatrics

Basing referral of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to nephrologists on 2-year kidney failure risk exceeding 1% would catch those at higher risk without increasing referral volumes generated from current laboratory-based guidelines, new research indicates.

And combining the two methods – predicted kidney failure risk with lab values – will lead to better patient outcomes by pinpointing CKD patients who most need specialty care, said study author Vishal Duggal, MD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in medical informatics at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System while conducting the research.

“We hope this can provide guidance to primary care physicians and nephrologists to give context for their decision-making,” Dr. Duggal told this news organization.

The VA is the largest provider of CKD care in the United States, developing clinical practice guidelines for CKD management that include suggested indications for nephrology referral based on laboratory values. Laboratory values that are typically used to guide referral include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its rate of decline per year, as well as heavy proteinuria in patients with and without diabetes. 

Dr. Duggal and colleagues – who published their findings in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases – conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 400,000 veterans with CKD over a yearlong period to determine if referral volume would change if it was based on the estimated risk for kidney failure, rather than solely using laboratory values.

They also estimated the potential volume of nephrology referrals based on a combination of both estimated risk for kidney failure and laboratory data.

Kidney failure risk was calculated using an electronic clinical decision support tool, called Kidney Failure Risk Equation incorporating age, eGFR, gender, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
 

Targeting fewer patients to specialty care

Among all participants with CKD not already receiving nephrology care, more than 150,000 (41.5%) had a urine albumin or protein measurement leading to computable risk for end-stage kidney disease.

More than 66,200 patients met actual laboratory indications for referral but had not previously seen a nephrologist. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year, and all had a median 2-year predicted risk for kidney failure of 1.5%.

Referred patients were more likely to meet several potential referral criteria, especially eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and heavy proteinuria. Those with heavy proteinuria with diabetes, or the eGFR indication, had the highest predicted risk for kidney failure at 2 years, at 10% and 7.1% respectively.

Boosting referral volume can be problematic if patients aren’t prioritized by need, Dr. Duggal said, noting that many reasons explain why fewer than one in five CKD patients meeting lab indications for referral aren’t actually referred.

This can include patient preference, he noted: “Kidney disease is a disease of aging, and some patients don’t want to see a specialist or escalate their care.”

“Also, not everyone who has CKD is recommended to see a nephrologist, since primary care physicians do manage a lot of CKD as well.”

Basing referral on predicted kidney failure risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of at least 1%, would identify a comparable number of patients (n = 72,948) as laboratory-based criteria, the team found, although they note that the patients identified using the KFRE tool would be at higher risk than those identified by lab values alone.

But when they combined the two – a minimum kidney failure risk of at least 1% over 2 years being applied to all new patients meeting lab-based referral indications, those pinpointed for nephrology referral dropped by 42.3%, from 66,276 to an estimated 38,229 patients.

“The current guidelines that just incorporate lab values identify a significant number of patients who are at low risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), so incorporating kidney failure risk into current guidelines would target fewer patients to get to specialty care,” Dr. Duggal explained.
 

KFRE tool can be found online

Dr. Duggal emphasized that his findings do not change nephrology referral guidelines, but said physicians can find the KFRE tool online and use it to supplement their decision-making about a patient’s care.

“Further incorporating this [kidney failure] risk into referral practices might highlight a patient at extremely high risk who would benefit more from an interdisciplinary care team,” he said.

This could include, for example, a nutritionist to help the patient modify his or her diet. “Getting that kind of teaching process in place for a patient might be highly valuable,” he added.

Dr. Duggal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Basing referral of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to nephrologists on 2-year kidney failure risk exceeding 1% would catch those at higher risk without increasing referral volumes generated from current laboratory-based guidelines, new research indicates.

And combining the two methods – predicted kidney failure risk with lab values – will lead to better patient outcomes by pinpointing CKD patients who most need specialty care, said study author Vishal Duggal, MD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in medical informatics at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System while conducting the research.

“We hope this can provide guidance to primary care physicians and nephrologists to give context for their decision-making,” Dr. Duggal told this news organization.

The VA is the largest provider of CKD care in the United States, developing clinical practice guidelines for CKD management that include suggested indications for nephrology referral based on laboratory values. Laboratory values that are typically used to guide referral include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its rate of decline per year, as well as heavy proteinuria in patients with and without diabetes. 

Dr. Duggal and colleagues – who published their findings in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases – conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 400,000 veterans with CKD over a yearlong period to determine if referral volume would change if it was based on the estimated risk for kidney failure, rather than solely using laboratory values.

They also estimated the potential volume of nephrology referrals based on a combination of both estimated risk for kidney failure and laboratory data.

Kidney failure risk was calculated using an electronic clinical decision support tool, called Kidney Failure Risk Equation incorporating age, eGFR, gender, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
 

Targeting fewer patients to specialty care

Among all participants with CKD not already receiving nephrology care, more than 150,000 (41.5%) had a urine albumin or protein measurement leading to computable risk for end-stage kidney disease.

More than 66,200 patients met actual laboratory indications for referral but had not previously seen a nephrologist. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year, and all had a median 2-year predicted risk for kidney failure of 1.5%.

Referred patients were more likely to meet several potential referral criteria, especially eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and heavy proteinuria. Those with heavy proteinuria with diabetes, or the eGFR indication, had the highest predicted risk for kidney failure at 2 years, at 10% and 7.1% respectively.

Boosting referral volume can be problematic if patients aren’t prioritized by need, Dr. Duggal said, noting that many reasons explain why fewer than one in five CKD patients meeting lab indications for referral aren’t actually referred.

This can include patient preference, he noted: “Kidney disease is a disease of aging, and some patients don’t want to see a specialist or escalate their care.”

“Also, not everyone who has CKD is recommended to see a nephrologist, since primary care physicians do manage a lot of CKD as well.”

Basing referral on predicted kidney failure risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of at least 1%, would identify a comparable number of patients (n = 72,948) as laboratory-based criteria, the team found, although they note that the patients identified using the KFRE tool would be at higher risk than those identified by lab values alone.

But when they combined the two – a minimum kidney failure risk of at least 1% over 2 years being applied to all new patients meeting lab-based referral indications, those pinpointed for nephrology referral dropped by 42.3%, from 66,276 to an estimated 38,229 patients.

“The current guidelines that just incorporate lab values identify a significant number of patients who are at low risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), so incorporating kidney failure risk into current guidelines would target fewer patients to get to specialty care,” Dr. Duggal explained.
 

KFRE tool can be found online

Dr. Duggal emphasized that his findings do not change nephrology referral guidelines, but said physicians can find the KFRE tool online and use it to supplement their decision-making about a patient’s care.

“Further incorporating this [kidney failure] risk into referral practices might highlight a patient at extremely high risk who would benefit more from an interdisciplinary care team,” he said.

This could include, for example, a nutritionist to help the patient modify his or her diet. “Getting that kind of teaching process in place for a patient might be highly valuable,” he added.

Dr. Duggal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Basing referral of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to nephrologists on 2-year kidney failure risk exceeding 1% would catch those at higher risk without increasing referral volumes generated from current laboratory-based guidelines, new research indicates.

And combining the two methods – predicted kidney failure risk with lab values – will lead to better patient outcomes by pinpointing CKD patients who most need specialty care, said study author Vishal Duggal, MD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in medical informatics at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System while conducting the research.

“We hope this can provide guidance to primary care physicians and nephrologists to give context for their decision-making,” Dr. Duggal told this news organization.

The VA is the largest provider of CKD care in the United States, developing clinical practice guidelines for CKD management that include suggested indications for nephrology referral based on laboratory values. Laboratory values that are typically used to guide referral include estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its rate of decline per year, as well as heavy proteinuria in patients with and without diabetes. 

Dr. Duggal and colleagues – who published their findings in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases – conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 400,000 veterans with CKD over a yearlong period to determine if referral volume would change if it was based on the estimated risk for kidney failure, rather than solely using laboratory values.

They also estimated the potential volume of nephrology referrals based on a combination of both estimated risk for kidney failure and laboratory data.

Kidney failure risk was calculated using an electronic clinical decision support tool, called Kidney Failure Risk Equation incorporating age, eGFR, gender, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.
 

Targeting fewer patients to specialty care

Among all participants with CKD not already receiving nephrology care, more than 150,000 (41.5%) had a urine albumin or protein measurement leading to computable risk for end-stage kidney disease.

More than 66,200 patients met actual laboratory indications for referral but had not previously seen a nephrologist. Among these patients, 11,752 (17.7%) were referred to nephrology in the following year, and all had a median 2-year predicted risk for kidney failure of 1.5%.

Referred patients were more likely to meet several potential referral criteria, especially eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and heavy proteinuria. Those with heavy proteinuria with diabetes, or the eGFR indication, had the highest predicted risk for kidney failure at 2 years, at 10% and 7.1% respectively.

Boosting referral volume can be problematic if patients aren’t prioritized by need, Dr. Duggal said, noting that many reasons explain why fewer than one in five CKD patients meeting lab indications for referral aren’t actually referred.

This can include patient preference, he noted: “Kidney disease is a disease of aging, and some patients don’t want to see a specialist or escalate their care.”

“Also, not everyone who has CKD is recommended to see a nephrologist, since primary care physicians do manage a lot of CKD as well.”

Basing referral on predicted kidney failure risk alone, a 2-year risk threshold of at least 1%, would identify a comparable number of patients (n = 72,948) as laboratory-based criteria, the team found, although they note that the patients identified using the KFRE tool would be at higher risk than those identified by lab values alone.

But when they combined the two – a minimum kidney failure risk of at least 1% over 2 years being applied to all new patients meeting lab-based referral indications, those pinpointed for nephrology referral dropped by 42.3%, from 66,276 to an estimated 38,229 patients.

“The current guidelines that just incorporate lab values identify a significant number of patients who are at low risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), so incorporating kidney failure risk into current guidelines would target fewer patients to get to specialty care,” Dr. Duggal explained.
 

KFRE tool can be found online

Dr. Duggal emphasized that his findings do not change nephrology referral guidelines, but said physicians can find the KFRE tool online and use it to supplement their decision-making about a patient’s care.

“Further incorporating this [kidney failure] risk into referral practices might highlight a patient at extremely high risk who would benefit more from an interdisciplinary care team,” he said.

This could include, for example, a nutritionist to help the patient modify his or her diet. “Getting that kind of teaching process in place for a patient might be highly valuable,” he added.

Dr. Duggal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved lonapegsomatropin (Skytrofa, Ascendis Pharma), the first weekly subcutaneous injectable growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).

The approval was based on the findings of the 52-week, phase 3 heiGHt trial in 161 treatment-naive pediatric patients with GHD, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

Since 1987, the standard treatment for pediatric GHD, in which the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone, has been a daily injection of somatropin (recombinant DNA human growth hormone).

“I am excited to be able to reduce the number of shots for some children requiring growth hormone therapy” with this new dosing option, Bradley S. Miller, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, said in an email.

“I am hopeful that a once-weekly growth hormone option will improve adherence to growth hormone therapy, leading to improved growth and metabolic outcomes,” added Dr. Miller, professor and division director, pediatric endocrinology, at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis.

Lonapegsomatropin is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients age 1 year and older who weigh at least 11.5 kg (25.4 pounds) and have short stature due to inadequate secretion of endogenous growth hormone, according to the prescribing information.

The drug molecule consists of a prodrug of somatropin that is inactive when it is bound to a proprietary TransCon (transient conjugation) inert carrier using a TransCon linker. The three-part molecule breaks apart after injection, exposing the active somatropin that is slowly released.

The heiGHt trial demonstrated noninferiority of lonapegsomatropin to somatropin daily injections. Children who received weekly lonapegsomatropin grew 11.2 cm (4.4 inches) per year, whereas those who received an equivalent total dose of somatropin daily injections grew 10.3 cm (4.1 inches) per year.

Safety outcomes – the ratio of bone age to chronologic age, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity – were similar in both groups.
 

Anticipated uptake, other drugs on horizon

Lonapegsomatropin is expected to be available shortly in the United States along with a suite of patient support programs, according to a company press release.

“The impact of the approval of lonapegsomatropin on clinical practice will depend upon its availability, coverage by insurance providers, and patient/provider comfort with using a new product,” Dr. Miller said.

For most pediatric endocrinologists, daily growth hormone has been available their entire careers, so he expects it will take some time for the pediatric endocrinology community to be comfortable prescribing long-acting growth hormone (LAGH), the name given to the once-weekly products.

In the meantime, an FDA decision on another once-weekly growth hormone, somatrogon (OPKO Health/Pfizer) for children with GHD is expected very soon, in October 2021.

And a weekly injectable somapacitan (Sogroya, Novo Nordisk), approved by the FDA in September last year for adults with GHD, is also being studied in children, with estimated study completion in 2024.

“Approval of more LAGH molecules, approval of LAGH for more indications, real-world evidence of safety, efficacy, and improved adherence, and personal experience with LAGH will all likely lead to increased LAGH use over time,” Dr. Miller speculated.

“Over the long-term, I expect insurance providers will cover LAGH products,” he surmised, “but that the price will be similar to or slightly higher than daily growth hormone.”

However, if improved adherence with LAGH is demonstrated and associated with better treatment outcomes, the price of LAGH will likely increase and use of daily growth hormone will decrease, he predicts.

Paul Saenger, MD, who was not involved with the research, believes “all three long-acting growth hormone drugs will eventually be approved for GHD in children.”

“The price will be the same or may be at most 10% more than daily growth hormone replacement,” Dr. Saenger, a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, said in an email.

However, daily subcutaneous injections will still be warranted for certain children with GHD, Dr. Miller noted.

“Daily growth hormone may be better than LAGH for a small number of children who have severe GHD associated with hypoglycemia,” he said. “The low levels of growth hormone at the end of the weekly interval of LAGH may allow hypoglycemia to occur in this population.”
 

Phase 3 trial in 161 treatment-naive children with GHD

The heiGHt trial randomized treatment-naive prepubertal children with GHD 2:1 to weekly lonapegsomatropin or daily somatropin (Genotropin, Pfizer) at 73 sites in 15 countries.

The children were a mean age of 8.5 years (range, 3.2-13.1 years), 82% were boys, and 94% were White.

There were no reported serious adverse events or discontinuations related to lonapegsomatropin.

The most common adverse reactions in ≥5% of these pediatric patients were viral infection (15%), pyrexia (15%), cough (11%), nausea and vomiting (11%), hemorrhage (7%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (6%), and arthralgia and arthritis (6%).

Both study groups reported low incidences of transient, non-neutralizing anti-hGH binding antibodies and no cases of persistent antibodies.

Trial limitations include the fact the study was not blinded (as patients received a weekly or daily injection) and drug doses were fixed at 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week, although in real-world clinical practice, doses may be titrated.

Lonapegsomatropin has been studied in more than 300 children with GHD in the phase 3 program in the heiGHt trial (treatment-naive patients), fliGHt trial (treatment-experienced patients), and enliGHten trial (an ongoing long-term extension trial that includes some patients who have been taking lonapegsomatropin for more than 4 years).

The study was sponsored by Ascendis Pharma. Some of the phase 3 study authors are company employees.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved lonapegsomatropin (Skytrofa, Ascendis Pharma), the first weekly subcutaneous injectable growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).

The approval was based on the findings of the 52-week, phase 3 heiGHt trial in 161 treatment-naive pediatric patients with GHD, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

Since 1987, the standard treatment for pediatric GHD, in which the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone, has been a daily injection of somatropin (recombinant DNA human growth hormone).

“I am excited to be able to reduce the number of shots for some children requiring growth hormone therapy” with this new dosing option, Bradley S. Miller, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, said in an email.

“I am hopeful that a once-weekly growth hormone option will improve adherence to growth hormone therapy, leading to improved growth and metabolic outcomes,” added Dr. Miller, professor and division director, pediatric endocrinology, at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis.

Lonapegsomatropin is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients age 1 year and older who weigh at least 11.5 kg (25.4 pounds) and have short stature due to inadequate secretion of endogenous growth hormone, according to the prescribing information.

The drug molecule consists of a prodrug of somatropin that is inactive when it is bound to a proprietary TransCon (transient conjugation) inert carrier using a TransCon linker. The three-part molecule breaks apart after injection, exposing the active somatropin that is slowly released.

The heiGHt trial demonstrated noninferiority of lonapegsomatropin to somatropin daily injections. Children who received weekly lonapegsomatropin grew 11.2 cm (4.4 inches) per year, whereas those who received an equivalent total dose of somatropin daily injections grew 10.3 cm (4.1 inches) per year.

Safety outcomes – the ratio of bone age to chronologic age, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity – were similar in both groups.
 

Anticipated uptake, other drugs on horizon

Lonapegsomatropin is expected to be available shortly in the United States along with a suite of patient support programs, according to a company press release.

“The impact of the approval of lonapegsomatropin on clinical practice will depend upon its availability, coverage by insurance providers, and patient/provider comfort with using a new product,” Dr. Miller said.

For most pediatric endocrinologists, daily growth hormone has been available their entire careers, so he expects it will take some time for the pediatric endocrinology community to be comfortable prescribing long-acting growth hormone (LAGH), the name given to the once-weekly products.

In the meantime, an FDA decision on another once-weekly growth hormone, somatrogon (OPKO Health/Pfizer) for children with GHD is expected very soon, in October 2021.

And a weekly injectable somapacitan (Sogroya, Novo Nordisk), approved by the FDA in September last year for adults with GHD, is also being studied in children, with estimated study completion in 2024.

“Approval of more LAGH molecules, approval of LAGH for more indications, real-world evidence of safety, efficacy, and improved adherence, and personal experience with LAGH will all likely lead to increased LAGH use over time,” Dr. Miller speculated.

“Over the long-term, I expect insurance providers will cover LAGH products,” he surmised, “but that the price will be similar to or slightly higher than daily growth hormone.”

However, if improved adherence with LAGH is demonstrated and associated with better treatment outcomes, the price of LAGH will likely increase and use of daily growth hormone will decrease, he predicts.

Paul Saenger, MD, who was not involved with the research, believes “all three long-acting growth hormone drugs will eventually be approved for GHD in children.”

“The price will be the same or may be at most 10% more than daily growth hormone replacement,” Dr. Saenger, a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, said in an email.

However, daily subcutaneous injections will still be warranted for certain children with GHD, Dr. Miller noted.

“Daily growth hormone may be better than LAGH for a small number of children who have severe GHD associated with hypoglycemia,” he said. “The low levels of growth hormone at the end of the weekly interval of LAGH may allow hypoglycemia to occur in this population.”
 

Phase 3 trial in 161 treatment-naive children with GHD

The heiGHt trial randomized treatment-naive prepubertal children with GHD 2:1 to weekly lonapegsomatropin or daily somatropin (Genotropin, Pfizer) at 73 sites in 15 countries.

The children were a mean age of 8.5 years (range, 3.2-13.1 years), 82% were boys, and 94% were White.

There were no reported serious adverse events or discontinuations related to lonapegsomatropin.

The most common adverse reactions in ≥5% of these pediatric patients were viral infection (15%), pyrexia (15%), cough (11%), nausea and vomiting (11%), hemorrhage (7%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (6%), and arthralgia and arthritis (6%).

Both study groups reported low incidences of transient, non-neutralizing anti-hGH binding antibodies and no cases of persistent antibodies.

Trial limitations include the fact the study was not blinded (as patients received a weekly or daily injection) and drug doses were fixed at 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week, although in real-world clinical practice, doses may be titrated.

Lonapegsomatropin has been studied in more than 300 children with GHD in the phase 3 program in the heiGHt trial (treatment-naive patients), fliGHt trial (treatment-experienced patients), and enliGHten trial (an ongoing long-term extension trial that includes some patients who have been taking lonapegsomatropin for more than 4 years).

The study was sponsored by Ascendis Pharma. Some of the phase 3 study authors are company employees.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved lonapegsomatropin (Skytrofa, Ascendis Pharma), the first weekly subcutaneous injectable growth hormone for children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD).

The approval was based on the findings of the 52-week, phase 3 heiGHt trial in 161 treatment-naive pediatric patients with GHD, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

Since 1987, the standard treatment for pediatric GHD, in which the pituitary gland does not produce enough growth hormone, has been a daily injection of somatropin (recombinant DNA human growth hormone).

“I am excited to be able to reduce the number of shots for some children requiring growth hormone therapy” with this new dosing option, Bradley S. Miller, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, said in an email.

“I am hopeful that a once-weekly growth hormone option will improve adherence to growth hormone therapy, leading to improved growth and metabolic outcomes,” added Dr. Miller, professor and division director, pediatric endocrinology, at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children’s Hospital, Minneapolis.

Lonapegsomatropin is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients age 1 year and older who weigh at least 11.5 kg (25.4 pounds) and have short stature due to inadequate secretion of endogenous growth hormone, according to the prescribing information.

The drug molecule consists of a prodrug of somatropin that is inactive when it is bound to a proprietary TransCon (transient conjugation) inert carrier using a TransCon linker. The three-part molecule breaks apart after injection, exposing the active somatropin that is slowly released.

The heiGHt trial demonstrated noninferiority of lonapegsomatropin to somatropin daily injections. Children who received weekly lonapegsomatropin grew 11.2 cm (4.4 inches) per year, whereas those who received an equivalent total dose of somatropin daily injections grew 10.3 cm (4.1 inches) per year.

Safety outcomes – the ratio of bone age to chronologic age, adverse events, tolerability, and immunogenicity – were similar in both groups.
 

Anticipated uptake, other drugs on horizon

Lonapegsomatropin is expected to be available shortly in the United States along with a suite of patient support programs, according to a company press release.

“The impact of the approval of lonapegsomatropin on clinical practice will depend upon its availability, coverage by insurance providers, and patient/provider comfort with using a new product,” Dr. Miller said.

For most pediatric endocrinologists, daily growth hormone has been available their entire careers, so he expects it will take some time for the pediatric endocrinology community to be comfortable prescribing long-acting growth hormone (LAGH), the name given to the once-weekly products.

In the meantime, an FDA decision on another once-weekly growth hormone, somatrogon (OPKO Health/Pfizer) for children with GHD is expected very soon, in October 2021.

And a weekly injectable somapacitan (Sogroya, Novo Nordisk), approved by the FDA in September last year for adults with GHD, is also being studied in children, with estimated study completion in 2024.

“Approval of more LAGH molecules, approval of LAGH for more indications, real-world evidence of safety, efficacy, and improved adherence, and personal experience with LAGH will all likely lead to increased LAGH use over time,” Dr. Miller speculated.

“Over the long-term, I expect insurance providers will cover LAGH products,” he surmised, “but that the price will be similar to or slightly higher than daily growth hormone.”

However, if improved adherence with LAGH is demonstrated and associated with better treatment outcomes, the price of LAGH will likely increase and use of daily growth hormone will decrease, he predicts.

Paul Saenger, MD, who was not involved with the research, believes “all three long-acting growth hormone drugs will eventually be approved for GHD in children.”

“The price will be the same or may be at most 10% more than daily growth hormone replacement,” Dr. Saenger, a pediatric endocrinologist and clinical assistant professor at NYU Long Island School of Medicine, New York, said in an email.

However, daily subcutaneous injections will still be warranted for certain children with GHD, Dr. Miller noted.

“Daily growth hormone may be better than LAGH for a small number of children who have severe GHD associated with hypoglycemia,” he said. “The low levels of growth hormone at the end of the weekly interval of LAGH may allow hypoglycemia to occur in this population.”
 

Phase 3 trial in 161 treatment-naive children with GHD

The heiGHt trial randomized treatment-naive prepubertal children with GHD 2:1 to weekly lonapegsomatropin or daily somatropin (Genotropin, Pfizer) at 73 sites in 15 countries.

The children were a mean age of 8.5 years (range, 3.2-13.1 years), 82% were boys, and 94% were White.

There were no reported serious adverse events or discontinuations related to lonapegsomatropin.

The most common adverse reactions in ≥5% of these pediatric patients were viral infection (15%), pyrexia (15%), cough (11%), nausea and vomiting (11%), hemorrhage (7%), diarrhea (6%), abdominal pain (6%), and arthralgia and arthritis (6%).

Both study groups reported low incidences of transient, non-neutralizing anti-hGH binding antibodies and no cases of persistent antibodies.

Trial limitations include the fact the study was not blinded (as patients received a weekly or daily injection) and drug doses were fixed at 0.24 mg human growth hormone/kg/week, although in real-world clinical practice, doses may be titrated.

Lonapegsomatropin has been studied in more than 300 children with GHD in the phase 3 program in the heiGHt trial (treatment-naive patients), fliGHt trial (treatment-experienced patients), and enliGHten trial (an ongoing long-term extension trial that includes some patients who have been taking lonapegsomatropin for more than 4 years).

The study was sponsored by Ascendis Pharma. Some of the phase 3 study authors are company employees.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

The World Health Organization is tracking a new COVID-19 variant called Mu, which could be able to evade the immunity provided by the vaccines and prior infections.

The variant, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January. It has now been detected in 43 countries and was added to the WHO’s “variant of interest” list Aug. 30.

“The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape,” the WHO wrote in its weekly COVID-19 update on Aug 31.

Preliminary data suggests that the Mu variant may be able to evade antibodies at levels similar to the Beta variant, the WHO wrote, though more studies are needed. The Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, was first detected in South Africa and has shown some ability to evade vaccines.

As of Aug. 29, the global prevalence of the Mu variant appears to be less than 0.1%. But its prevalence in South America has “consistently increased,” the WHO wrote, now making up 39% of cases in Colombia and 13% of cases in Ecuador.

More than 4,700 cases of the Mu variant have been identified worldwide through genomic sequencing, according to Outbreak.info, an open-source database operated by Scripps Research. The United States has identified 2,011 of these cases, with 348 in California. As of Sept. 2, only one state -- Nebraska -- had not yet reported a Mu case.

“At the moment, it looks like there’s genuine cause for concern in USA, Central America, and South America, but as we saw with Delta, a potent variant can traverse the globe in the blink of an eye,” Danny Altmann, PhD, an immunologist at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph.

The WHO is monitoring nine variants with genetic mutations that could make them more transmissible, lead to more severe disease, and help them evade vaccines. The Delta variant, which is now a dominant form of the virus in the United States and worldwide, has led to a surge in cases and hospitalizations this summer.

In its report, the WHO said it would monitor the Mu variant for changes, “particularly with the co-circulation of the Delta variant.”

“Mu looks potentially good at immune evasion,” Dr. Altmann told The Telegraph. “For my taste, it’s a stark reminder that this isn’t by any means over. On a planet of 4.4 million-plus new infections per week, there are new variants popping up all the time, and little reason to feel complacent.”

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

The World Health Organization is tracking a new COVID-19 variant called Mu, which could be able to evade the immunity provided by the vaccines and prior infections.

The variant, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January. It has now been detected in 43 countries and was added to the WHO’s “variant of interest” list Aug. 30.

“The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape,” the WHO wrote in its weekly COVID-19 update on Aug 31.

Preliminary data suggests that the Mu variant may be able to evade antibodies at levels similar to the Beta variant, the WHO wrote, though more studies are needed. The Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, was first detected in South Africa and has shown some ability to evade vaccines.

As of Aug. 29, the global prevalence of the Mu variant appears to be less than 0.1%. But its prevalence in South America has “consistently increased,” the WHO wrote, now making up 39% of cases in Colombia and 13% of cases in Ecuador.

More than 4,700 cases of the Mu variant have been identified worldwide through genomic sequencing, according to Outbreak.info, an open-source database operated by Scripps Research. The United States has identified 2,011 of these cases, with 348 in California. As of Sept. 2, only one state -- Nebraska -- had not yet reported a Mu case.

“At the moment, it looks like there’s genuine cause for concern in USA, Central America, and South America, but as we saw with Delta, a potent variant can traverse the globe in the blink of an eye,” Danny Altmann, PhD, an immunologist at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph.

The WHO is monitoring nine variants with genetic mutations that could make them more transmissible, lead to more severe disease, and help them evade vaccines. The Delta variant, which is now a dominant form of the virus in the United States and worldwide, has led to a surge in cases and hospitalizations this summer.

In its report, the WHO said it would monitor the Mu variant for changes, “particularly with the co-circulation of the Delta variant.”

“Mu looks potentially good at immune evasion,” Dr. Altmann told The Telegraph. “For my taste, it’s a stark reminder that this isn’t by any means over. On a planet of 4.4 million-plus new infections per week, there are new variants popping up all the time, and little reason to feel complacent.”

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

The World Health Organization is tracking a new COVID-19 variant called Mu, which could be able to evade the immunity provided by the vaccines and prior infections.

The variant, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January. It has now been detected in 43 countries and was added to the WHO’s “variant of interest” list Aug. 30.

“The Mu variant has a constellation of mutations that indicate potential properties of immune escape,” the WHO wrote in its weekly COVID-19 update on Aug 31.

Preliminary data suggests that the Mu variant may be able to evade antibodies at levels similar to the Beta variant, the WHO wrote, though more studies are needed. The Beta variant, also known as B.1.351, was first detected in South Africa and has shown some ability to evade vaccines.

As of Aug. 29, the global prevalence of the Mu variant appears to be less than 0.1%. But its prevalence in South America has “consistently increased,” the WHO wrote, now making up 39% of cases in Colombia and 13% of cases in Ecuador.

More than 4,700 cases of the Mu variant have been identified worldwide through genomic sequencing, according to Outbreak.info, an open-source database operated by Scripps Research. The United States has identified 2,011 of these cases, with 348 in California. As of Sept. 2, only one state -- Nebraska -- had not yet reported a Mu case.

“At the moment, it looks like there’s genuine cause for concern in USA, Central America, and South America, but as we saw with Delta, a potent variant can traverse the globe in the blink of an eye,” Danny Altmann, PhD, an immunologist at Imperial College London, told The Telegraph.

The WHO is monitoring nine variants with genetic mutations that could make them more transmissible, lead to more severe disease, and help them evade vaccines. The Delta variant, which is now a dominant form of the virus in the United States and worldwide, has led to a surge in cases and hospitalizations this summer.

In its report, the WHO said it would monitor the Mu variant for changes, “particularly with the co-circulation of the Delta variant.”

“Mu looks potentially good at immune evasion,” Dr. Altmann told The Telegraph. “For my taste, it’s a stark reminder that this isn’t by any means over. On a planet of 4.4 million-plus new infections per week, there are new variants popping up all the time, and little reason to feel complacent.”

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

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.

“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”

Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”

Treating pediatric psoriasis

Dr. Paller discussed her approach to managing patients with pediatric psoriasis, an inflammatory disorder with IL-23/Th17 skewing. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”

Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.

Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”

Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.

In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments (JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156[1]:72-8).

Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
•    It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
•    It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
•    It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
•    Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above. 
•    With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream. 

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.

“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”

Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”

Treating pediatric psoriasis

Dr. Paller discussed her approach to managing patients with pediatric psoriasis, an inflammatory disorder with IL-23/Th17 skewing. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”

Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.

Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”

Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.

In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments (JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156[1]:72-8).

Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
•    It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
•    It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
•    It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
•    Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above. 
•    With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream. 

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.

“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”

Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”

Treating pediatric psoriasis

Dr. Paller discussed her approach to managing patients with pediatric psoriasis, an inflammatory disorder with IL-23/Th17 skewing. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”

Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.

Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”

Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.

In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments (JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156[1]:72-8).

Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
•    It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
•    It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
•    It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
•    Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above. 
•    With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream. 

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.