Conference Coverage

Higher direct ultraviolet light exposure in the first 3 months of life was linked to lower incidence of proinflammatory immune markers and lower incidence of eczema in an early-stage double-blind, randomized controlled trial.  

Kristina Rueter, MD, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, who presented her team’s findings on Sunday at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021, said their study is the first to demonstrate the association.

“There has been a significant rise in allergic diseases, particularly within the last 20-30 years,” Dr. Rueter noted.  

“Changes to the genetic pool take thousands of years to have an impact,” she said, “so the question is why do we have the significant, very recent rise of allergic diseases?”

Suboptimal vitamin D levels during infancy, lifestyle changes, nutritional changes, and living at higher latitudes have emerged as explanations.

In this study, 195 high-risk newborns were randomized to receive oral vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) or placebo until 6 months of age.

Researchers found that UV light exposure appears more beneficial than vitamin D supplements as an allergy prevention strategy in the critical early years of immune system development.

The researchers used a novel approach of attaching a personal UV dosimeter to the infants’ clothing to measure direct UV light exposure (290-380 nm). Vitamin D levels were measured at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months of age. Immune function was assessed at 6 months of age, and food allergy, eczema, and wheeze were assessed at 6, 12, and 30 months of age.

At 3 (P < .01) and 6 (P = .02) months of age, vitamin D levels were greater in the children who received vitamin D supplements than those who received placebo, but there was no difference in eczema incidence between groups. The finding matched those of previous studies that compared the supplements with placebo, Dr. Rueter said.

However, infants with eczema were found to have had less UV light exposure compared to those without eczema (median interquartile range [IQR], 555 J/m² vs. 998 J/m²; P = .023).

“We also found an inverse correlation between total UV light exposure and toll-like receptor cytokine production,” Dr. Rueter said.

“The more direct UV light exposure a child got, the less the chance to develop eczema,” she said.

Researchers then extended their analysis to see whether the effect of direct UV light exposure on reduced eczema would be maintained in the first 2.5 years of life, “and we could see again a significant difference, that the children who received higher UV light exposure had less eczema,” Dr. Rueter said.

Barbara Rogala, MD, PhD, professor at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that, just as in studies on vitamin D in adult populations, there must be a balance in infant studies between potential benefit of a therapeutic strategy of vitamin D and sunlight and risk of side effects. (Dr. Rogala was not involved in Dr. Rueter’s study.)

Although vitamin D supplements are a standard part of infant care, exposure to sunlight can come with cancer risk, she noted.

Dr. Rueter agreed caution is necessary.

“You have to follow the cancer guidelines,” she said. “Sunlight may play a role in causing skin cancer, and lots of research needs to be done to find the right balance between what is a good amount which may influence the immune system in a positive way and what, on the other hand, might be too much.”

As for vitamin D supplements, Dr. Rueter said, toxic levels require “extremely high doses,” so with 400 IU/day used in the study, children are likely not being overtreated by combining sunlight and vitamin D supplements.

The study was supported by grants from Telethon–New Children’s Hospital Research Fund, Australia; Asthma Foundation of Western Australia; and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Australia. Dr. Rueter and Dr. Rogala have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher direct ultraviolet light exposure in the first 3 months of life was linked to lower incidence of proinflammatory immune markers and lower incidence of eczema in an early-stage double-blind, randomized controlled trial.  

Kristina Rueter, MD, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, who presented her team’s findings on Sunday at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021, said their study is the first to demonstrate the association.

“There has been a significant rise in allergic diseases, particularly within the last 20-30 years,” Dr. Rueter noted.  

“Changes to the genetic pool take thousands of years to have an impact,” she said, “so the question is why do we have the significant, very recent rise of allergic diseases?”

Suboptimal vitamin D levels during infancy, lifestyle changes, nutritional changes, and living at higher latitudes have emerged as explanations.

In this study, 195 high-risk newborns were randomized to receive oral vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) or placebo until 6 months of age.

Researchers found that UV light exposure appears more beneficial than vitamin D supplements as an allergy prevention strategy in the critical early years of immune system development.

The researchers used a novel approach of attaching a personal UV dosimeter to the infants’ clothing to measure direct UV light exposure (290-380 nm). Vitamin D levels were measured at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months of age. Immune function was assessed at 6 months of age, and food allergy, eczema, and wheeze were assessed at 6, 12, and 30 months of age.

At 3 (P < .01) and 6 (P = .02) months of age, vitamin D levels were greater in the children who received vitamin D supplements than those who received placebo, but there was no difference in eczema incidence between groups. The finding matched those of previous studies that compared the supplements with placebo, Dr. Rueter said.

However, infants with eczema were found to have had less UV light exposure compared to those without eczema (median interquartile range [IQR], 555 J/m² vs. 998 J/m²; P = .023).

“We also found an inverse correlation between total UV light exposure and toll-like receptor cytokine production,” Dr. Rueter said.

“The more direct UV light exposure a child got, the less the chance to develop eczema,” she said.

Researchers then extended their analysis to see whether the effect of direct UV light exposure on reduced eczema would be maintained in the first 2.5 years of life, “and we could see again a significant difference, that the children who received higher UV light exposure had less eczema,” Dr. Rueter said.

Barbara Rogala, MD, PhD, professor at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that, just as in studies on vitamin D in adult populations, there must be a balance in infant studies between potential benefit of a therapeutic strategy of vitamin D and sunlight and risk of side effects. (Dr. Rogala was not involved in Dr. Rueter’s study.)

Although vitamin D supplements are a standard part of infant care, exposure to sunlight can come with cancer risk, she noted.

Dr. Rueter agreed caution is necessary.

“You have to follow the cancer guidelines,” she said. “Sunlight may play a role in causing skin cancer, and lots of research needs to be done to find the right balance between what is a good amount which may influence the immune system in a positive way and what, on the other hand, might be too much.”

As for vitamin D supplements, Dr. Rueter said, toxic levels require “extremely high doses,” so with 400 IU/day used in the study, children are likely not being overtreated by combining sunlight and vitamin D supplements.

The study was supported by grants from Telethon–New Children’s Hospital Research Fund, Australia; Asthma Foundation of Western Australia; and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Australia. Dr. Rueter and Dr. Rogala have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher direct ultraviolet light exposure in the first 3 months of life was linked to lower incidence of proinflammatory immune markers and lower incidence of eczema in an early-stage double-blind, randomized controlled trial.  

Kristina Rueter, MD, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, who presented her team’s findings on Sunday at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021, said their study is the first to demonstrate the association.

“There has been a significant rise in allergic diseases, particularly within the last 20-30 years,” Dr. Rueter noted.  

“Changes to the genetic pool take thousands of years to have an impact,” she said, “so the question is why do we have the significant, very recent rise of allergic diseases?”

Suboptimal vitamin D levels during infancy, lifestyle changes, nutritional changes, and living at higher latitudes have emerged as explanations.

In this study, 195 high-risk newborns were randomized to receive oral vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) or placebo until 6 months of age.

Researchers found that UV light exposure appears more beneficial than vitamin D supplements as an allergy prevention strategy in the critical early years of immune system development.

The researchers used a novel approach of attaching a personal UV dosimeter to the infants’ clothing to measure direct UV light exposure (290-380 nm). Vitamin D levels were measured at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months of age. Immune function was assessed at 6 months of age, and food allergy, eczema, and wheeze were assessed at 6, 12, and 30 months of age.

At 3 (P < .01) and 6 (P = .02) months of age, vitamin D levels were greater in the children who received vitamin D supplements than those who received placebo, but there was no difference in eczema incidence between groups. The finding matched those of previous studies that compared the supplements with placebo, Dr. Rueter said.

However, infants with eczema were found to have had less UV light exposure compared to those without eczema (median interquartile range [IQR], 555 J/m² vs. 998 J/m²; P = .023).

“We also found an inverse correlation between total UV light exposure and toll-like receptor cytokine production,” Dr. Rueter said.

“The more direct UV light exposure a child got, the less the chance to develop eczema,” she said.

Researchers then extended their analysis to see whether the effect of direct UV light exposure on reduced eczema would be maintained in the first 2.5 years of life, “and we could see again a significant difference, that the children who received higher UV light exposure had less eczema,” Dr. Rueter said.

Barbara Rogala, MD, PhD, professor at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that, just as in studies on vitamin D in adult populations, there must be a balance in infant studies between potential benefit of a therapeutic strategy of vitamin D and sunlight and risk of side effects. (Dr. Rogala was not involved in Dr. Rueter’s study.)

Although vitamin D supplements are a standard part of infant care, exposure to sunlight can come with cancer risk, she noted.

Dr. Rueter agreed caution is necessary.

“You have to follow the cancer guidelines,” she said. “Sunlight may play a role in causing skin cancer, and lots of research needs to be done to find the right balance between what is a good amount which may influence the immune system in a positive way and what, on the other hand, might be too much.”

As for vitamin D supplements, Dr. Rueter said, toxic levels require “extremely high doses,” so with 400 IU/day used in the study, children are likely not being overtreated by combining sunlight and vitamin D supplements.

The study was supported by grants from Telethon–New Children’s Hospital Research Fund, Australia; Asthma Foundation of Western Australia; and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Australia. Dr. Rueter and Dr. Rogala have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new draft consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) addresses diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults.  

The impetus for the document comes from the “highly influential” EASD-ADA consensus report on the management of type 2 diabetes, which led to the realization that a comparable document was needed for adults with type 1 diabetes, said writing panel cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In recent years, there have been rapid advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes together with a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with [it],” Dr. Peters said.

She noted that although there is already some guidance available for the management of type 1 diabetes in adults, “this gets admixed into broader guidelines, and many of those are mostly derived from data in people with type 2 diabetes.”  

The new draft document was coauthored by 14 content experts in type 1 diabetes, with equal numbers from the United States and Europe.
 

We want to be helpful to clinicians

Topics covered include diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals of therapy and glycemic targets, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and additional behavioral considerations, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (including pregnant women, older adults, and inpatient management), and emergent/future perspectives, including beta-cell replacement and immunotherapy.

At the end of the document are tables of glycemic targets for adults with type 1 diabetes, schedule of care, nonglycemic factors that alter A1c levels, standardized continuous glucose meter (CGM) metrics for clinical care, examples of subcutaneous insulin regimens, and the various properties of approved and nonapproved adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes, including metformin, pramlintide, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.  

Several colorful flowcharts are also provided, including algorithms for diagnosing and managing type 1 diabetes in adults.

Document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the Diabetes Care Center’s Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization: “We want it to be helpful to clinicians who are diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults or caring for adults with type 1 diabetes, whether diagnosed in childhood or adulthood.”

The authors presented an overview of the document in a symposium on June 28 at the virtual ADA scientific sessions. The final version will be presented Oct. 1 at the EASD 2021 annual meeting.

The draft document and video of the ADA meeting presentation are both available on the ADA website.
 

New algorithm to reduce misdiagnosis of type 1 diabetes in adults

Misdiagnosis of adult-onset type 1 diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of those who develop the condition after age 30 years, said J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, medical director, Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany.

There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming more prevalent at younger ages, C-peptide levels may still be relatively high at the time of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, and islet autoantibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

“No single feature confirms type 1 diabetes in isolation,” Dr. de Vries noted.

The document provides a detailed diagnostic algorithm specifically for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, starting with autoantibody measurement. If the diagnosis isn’t confirmed that way, the algorithm advises investigating for monogenic diabetes, including use of a maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) calculator and subsequent C-peptide measurement.

Measurement of C-peptide is also recommended if the diabetes type is still uncertain more than 3 years after diabetes onset in those treated with insulin, because by that point it is likely to be <200 pmol/L in people with type 1 diabetes.  
 

Clear statements on diabetes technology, preferred insulins

The draft document clearly states that physiologic insulin replacement using a pump or multiple daily injections, CGM, and analog rather than human insulin are standards of care for adults with type 1 diabetes. Use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems is advised when available, as they offer the “greatest benefits.”

However, the document also notes that in cases of cost barriers, subcutaneous regimens of human regular and NPH insulin may be used. It cautions, though, that these may result in higher glucose variability, higher risk of hypoglycemia, and less lifestyle flexibility.

Dr. Kirkman told this news organization: “Using human insulins such as NPH and Regular in type 1 diabetes is definitely not preferred, but sometimes due to people’s inability to afford analogs we have to use them. People need to know how to use them safely.”

As for the do-it-yourself insulin delivery systems, which many with type 1 diabetes now use with open-source software algorithms that reverse-engineer older pumps, the document advises that health care providers shouldn’t actively recommend them as they’re not approved by regulatory authorities, but should also “respect the individual’s right to make informed choices and continue to offer support,” Dr. Kirkman said when presenting the insulin therapy section.
 

Psychosocial aspects of type 1 diabetes ‘underappreciated’

Special emphasis is placed on psychosocial support, which may be overlooked in adults, Dr. Kirkman noted.

“Clinicians probably underappreciate what people with type 1 diabetes go through on a daily basis. A lot of the evidence out there regarding psychosocial issues is in children and families of children with type 1 diabetes, or in adults with type 2 diabetes ... Maximizing quality of life needs to be at the forefront of care, not just focusing on glycemic goals.”

Indeed, between 20% and 40% of people with type 1 diabetes experience diabetes-related emotional distress – including 15% with depression – particularly at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop, noted Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

To address this, the draft advises that “self-management difficulties, psychological, and social problems” be screened periodically and monitored using validated screening tools.

“Health care providers should be proficient at asking questions about and discussing emotional health, psychological needs, and social challenges as part of the consultation,” Dr. Snoek said.

Dr. Peters disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, and Zealand, Omada, and Teladoc. Dr. Kirkman has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Bayer. Dr. de Vries disclosed ties with Adocia, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Eli Lilly, and Afon Technology. Dr. Snoek reported ties with Roche Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

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

A new draft consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) addresses diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults.  

The impetus for the document comes from the “highly influential” EASD-ADA consensus report on the management of type 2 diabetes, which led to the realization that a comparable document was needed for adults with type 1 diabetes, said writing panel cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In recent years, there have been rapid advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes together with a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with [it],” Dr. Peters said.

She noted that although there is already some guidance available for the management of type 1 diabetes in adults, “this gets admixed into broader guidelines, and many of those are mostly derived from data in people with type 2 diabetes.”  

The new draft document was coauthored by 14 content experts in type 1 diabetes, with equal numbers from the United States and Europe.
 

We want to be helpful to clinicians

Topics covered include diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals of therapy and glycemic targets, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and additional behavioral considerations, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (including pregnant women, older adults, and inpatient management), and emergent/future perspectives, including beta-cell replacement and immunotherapy.

At the end of the document are tables of glycemic targets for adults with type 1 diabetes, schedule of care, nonglycemic factors that alter A1c levels, standardized continuous glucose meter (CGM) metrics for clinical care, examples of subcutaneous insulin regimens, and the various properties of approved and nonapproved adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes, including metformin, pramlintide, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.  

Several colorful flowcharts are also provided, including algorithms for diagnosing and managing type 1 diabetes in adults.

Document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the Diabetes Care Center’s Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization: “We want it to be helpful to clinicians who are diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults or caring for adults with type 1 diabetes, whether diagnosed in childhood or adulthood.”

The authors presented an overview of the document in a symposium on June 28 at the virtual ADA scientific sessions. The final version will be presented Oct. 1 at the EASD 2021 annual meeting.

The draft document and video of the ADA meeting presentation are both available on the ADA website.
 

New algorithm to reduce misdiagnosis of type 1 diabetes in adults

Misdiagnosis of adult-onset type 1 diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of those who develop the condition after age 30 years, said J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, medical director, Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany.

There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming more prevalent at younger ages, C-peptide levels may still be relatively high at the time of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, and islet autoantibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

“No single feature confirms type 1 diabetes in isolation,” Dr. de Vries noted.

The document provides a detailed diagnostic algorithm specifically for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, starting with autoantibody measurement. If the diagnosis isn’t confirmed that way, the algorithm advises investigating for monogenic diabetes, including use of a maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) calculator and subsequent C-peptide measurement.

Measurement of C-peptide is also recommended if the diabetes type is still uncertain more than 3 years after diabetes onset in those treated with insulin, because by that point it is likely to be <200 pmol/L in people with type 1 diabetes.  
 

Clear statements on diabetes technology, preferred insulins

The draft document clearly states that physiologic insulin replacement using a pump or multiple daily injections, CGM, and analog rather than human insulin are standards of care for adults with type 1 diabetes. Use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems is advised when available, as they offer the “greatest benefits.”

However, the document also notes that in cases of cost barriers, subcutaneous regimens of human regular and NPH insulin may be used. It cautions, though, that these may result in higher glucose variability, higher risk of hypoglycemia, and less lifestyle flexibility.

Dr. Kirkman told this news organization: “Using human insulins such as NPH and Regular in type 1 diabetes is definitely not preferred, but sometimes due to people’s inability to afford analogs we have to use them. People need to know how to use them safely.”

As for the do-it-yourself insulin delivery systems, which many with type 1 diabetes now use with open-source software algorithms that reverse-engineer older pumps, the document advises that health care providers shouldn’t actively recommend them as they’re not approved by regulatory authorities, but should also “respect the individual’s right to make informed choices and continue to offer support,” Dr. Kirkman said when presenting the insulin therapy section.
 

Psychosocial aspects of type 1 diabetes ‘underappreciated’

Special emphasis is placed on psychosocial support, which may be overlooked in adults, Dr. Kirkman noted.

“Clinicians probably underappreciate what people with type 1 diabetes go through on a daily basis. A lot of the evidence out there regarding psychosocial issues is in children and families of children with type 1 diabetes, or in adults with type 2 diabetes ... Maximizing quality of life needs to be at the forefront of care, not just focusing on glycemic goals.”

Indeed, between 20% and 40% of people with type 1 diabetes experience diabetes-related emotional distress – including 15% with depression – particularly at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop, noted Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

To address this, the draft advises that “self-management difficulties, psychological, and social problems” be screened periodically and monitored using validated screening tools.

“Health care providers should be proficient at asking questions about and discussing emotional health, psychological needs, and social challenges as part of the consultation,” Dr. Snoek said.

Dr. Peters disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, and Zealand, Omada, and Teladoc. Dr. Kirkman has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Bayer. Dr. de Vries disclosed ties with Adocia, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Eli Lilly, and Afon Technology. Dr. Snoek reported ties with Roche Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

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

A new draft consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) addresses diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in adults.  

The impetus for the document comes from the “highly influential” EASD-ADA consensus report on the management of type 2 diabetes, which led to the realization that a comparable document was needed for adults with type 1 diabetes, said writing panel cochair Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In recent years, there have been rapid advances in the treatment of type 1 diabetes together with a growing recognition of the psychosocial burden of living with [it],” Dr. Peters said.

She noted that although there is already some guidance available for the management of type 1 diabetes in adults, “this gets admixed into broader guidelines, and many of those are mostly derived from data in people with type 2 diabetes.”  

The new draft document was coauthored by 14 content experts in type 1 diabetes, with equal numbers from the United States and Europe.
 

We want to be helpful to clinicians

Topics covered include diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, goals of therapy and glycemic targets, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and additional behavioral considerations, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet cell transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations (including pregnant women, older adults, and inpatient management), and emergent/future perspectives, including beta-cell replacement and immunotherapy.

At the end of the document are tables of glycemic targets for adults with type 1 diabetes, schedule of care, nonglycemic factors that alter A1c levels, standardized continuous glucose meter (CGM) metrics for clinical care, examples of subcutaneous insulin regimens, and the various properties of approved and nonapproved adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes, including metformin, pramlintide, GLP-1 agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.  

Several colorful flowcharts are also provided, including algorithms for diagnosing and managing type 1 diabetes in adults.

Document coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the Diabetes Care Center’s Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization: “We want it to be helpful to clinicians who are diagnosing type 1 diabetes in adults or caring for adults with type 1 diabetes, whether diagnosed in childhood or adulthood.”

The authors presented an overview of the document in a symposium on June 28 at the virtual ADA scientific sessions. The final version will be presented Oct. 1 at the EASD 2021 annual meeting.

The draft document and video of the ADA meeting presentation are both available on the ADA website.
 

New algorithm to reduce misdiagnosis of type 1 diabetes in adults

Misdiagnosis of adult-onset type 1 diabetes is common, occurring in up to 40% of those who develop the condition after age 30 years, said J. Hans de Vries, MD, PhD, medical director, Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany.

There are multiple reasons for this, including the fact that obesity and type 2 diabetes are becoming more prevalent at younger ages, C-peptide levels may still be relatively high at the time of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, and islet autoantibodies don’t have 100% positive predictive value.

“No single feature confirms type 1 diabetes in isolation,” Dr. de Vries noted.

The document provides a detailed diagnostic algorithm specifically for adults in whom type 1 diabetes is suspected, starting with autoantibody measurement. If the diagnosis isn’t confirmed that way, the algorithm advises investigating for monogenic diabetes, including use of a maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) calculator and subsequent C-peptide measurement.

Measurement of C-peptide is also recommended if the diabetes type is still uncertain more than 3 years after diabetes onset in those treated with insulin, because by that point it is likely to be <200 pmol/L in people with type 1 diabetes.  
 

Clear statements on diabetes technology, preferred insulins

The draft document clearly states that physiologic insulin replacement using a pump or multiple daily injections, CGM, and analog rather than human insulin are standards of care for adults with type 1 diabetes. Use of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems is advised when available, as they offer the “greatest benefits.”

However, the document also notes that in cases of cost barriers, subcutaneous regimens of human regular and NPH insulin may be used. It cautions, though, that these may result in higher glucose variability, higher risk of hypoglycemia, and less lifestyle flexibility.

Dr. Kirkman told this news organization: “Using human insulins such as NPH and Regular in type 1 diabetes is definitely not preferred, but sometimes due to people’s inability to afford analogs we have to use them. People need to know how to use them safely.”

As for the do-it-yourself insulin delivery systems, which many with type 1 diabetes now use with open-source software algorithms that reverse-engineer older pumps, the document advises that health care providers shouldn’t actively recommend them as they’re not approved by regulatory authorities, but should also “respect the individual’s right to make informed choices and continue to offer support,” Dr. Kirkman said when presenting the insulin therapy section.
 

Psychosocial aspects of type 1 diabetes ‘underappreciated’

Special emphasis is placed on psychosocial support, which may be overlooked in adults, Dr. Kirkman noted.

“Clinicians probably underappreciate what people with type 1 diabetes go through on a daily basis. A lot of the evidence out there regarding psychosocial issues is in children and families of children with type 1 diabetes, or in adults with type 2 diabetes ... Maximizing quality of life needs to be at the forefront of care, not just focusing on glycemic goals.”

Indeed, between 20% and 40% of people with type 1 diabetes experience diabetes-related emotional distress – including 15% with depression – particularly at the time of diagnosis and when complications develop, noted Frank J. Snoek, PhD, professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

To address this, the draft advises that “self-management difficulties, psychological, and social problems” be screened periodically and monitored using validated screening tools.

“Health care providers should be proficient at asking questions about and discussing emotional health, psychological needs, and social challenges as part of the consultation,” Dr. Snoek said.

Dr. Peters disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Vertex, and Zealand, Omada, and Teladoc. Dr. Kirkman has received research support from Novo Nordisk and Bayer. Dr. de Vries disclosed ties with Adocia, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, Eli Lilly, and Afon Technology. Dr. Snoek reported ties with Roche Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly.

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

The reintroduction of congressional bills that aim to end seasonal time change and move permanently to daylight saving time (DST) – and action on the issue by 19 states in the last 4 years – signal political momentum and up the ante on sleep medicine to educate others and to more uniformly weigh in on the health consequences of such a change.

This was the message of several sleep scientists and physicians who participated in moderated discussions of DST at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

A position paper issued about a year ago by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine objected to the proposed switch and instead called for elimination of DST in favor of permanent standard time (ST). While there are detrimental health effects with time changes in either direction, there is “abundant” evidence that the transition from standard time to daylight saving time is worse, the AASM statement says.

Some experts have questioned, however, whether the evidence is weighty and comprehensive enough to drive a change in national policy. Others, such as SLEEP 2021 discussant Karin Johnson, MD, say there is unawareness outside of sleep medicine – and even within – of a growing body of literature on circadian misalignment and its associated health risks.

“There’s an educational gap for what’s out there [in the literature],” Dr. Johnson, medical director of the Baystate Health regional sleep program and Baystate Medical Center sleep laboratory in Springfield, Mass., said in an interview after the meeting.

Calls for more research, particularly on the chronic effects of DST and ST, are concerning because discussions of abolishing seasonal time change are “moving forward with or without us,” Kenneth Wright Jr., PhD, director of the chronobiology laboratory at the University of Colorado in Boulder and professor in the university’s department of integrative biology, said at the meeting.

“We don’t have time ... to have the studies we’d need to prove unequivocally that permanent standard time [is best]. We need to consider the scientific evidence before us – what’s known about human biology and health with respect to light and circadian timing,” Dr. Wright said. “The argument that pushing our clocks later is going to be healthier is not tenable. We cannot support that given the vast amount of scientific evidence we have from circadian and sleep science.”

Underscoring the sense of urgency to be engaged in the issue were the messages of Rep. Raymond Ward, MD, PhD, a Utah legislator in the state’s House of Representatives who introduced a bill to permanently observe DST, pending the amendment of federal law to permit such a change, and provided that five other Western states enact the same legislation.

“I chose to support DST because I became convinced this is the only thing that’s politically possible,” said Rep. Ward, a family practice physician at the Ogden Clinic in Bountiful. National polls have shown a “strong preference” to end seasonal time change, he said, and a poll conducted in his district showed that nearly 80% “wanted to stop changing the clocks, and 65% wanted the summer time schedule.”

“To me, the train seems to be moving in one direction,” said Rep. Ward. “The bills open in Congress in both the House and the Senate don’t have enough support yet, but every time another state legislature passes [legislation to establish permanent DST], they pick up a few more supporters.”

The Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 introduced in the House in January by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) has 23 cosponsors, and a bill of the same name introduced in the Senate in March by Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has 14 cosponsors. Both bills have bipartisan support and are reintroductions of legislation initially put forth in 2019. A press release issued by Sen. Rubio’s office says that “extending DST can benefit the economy and our overall health.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states have enacted legislation or passed resolutions in the last several years to provide for year-round DST, if Congress were to allow such a change. And according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on DST updated in September 2020, at least 45 states have, since 2015, proposed legislation to change their observance of DST.

These efforts include proposals to exempt a state from DST observance, which is allowable under existing law, and proposals that would establish permanent DST, which would require Congress to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966, the CRS report says.
 

The state of the science

Shifting from ST to DST has been associated with an increase in cardiovascular morbidity (heart attacks and atrial fibrillation), increased missed medical appointments, increased ED visits, increased mood disturbances and suicide risk, increased risk of fatal car crashes and medical errors – and sleep loss, said Elizabeth Klerman, MD, PhD, professor of neurology in the division of sleep medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

These associations are covered in AASM statement, along with acknowledgment that most studies on the chronic effects of DST have “either been retrospective or addressed the issue indirectly.”

For Dr. Johnson, who refers to DST as “sleep deprivation time,” the most convincing data regarding the dangers of permanent DST come from studies comparing locations within time zones. “The farther you’re off from the meridian, the more you have that ‘social jet lag’ or circadian misalignment [between the innate circadian rhythm, which is synchronized with solar time, and school or work schedules],” she said at the meeting.

Researchers reported in 2017, for instance, that the risk for all cancers and many specific cancers increased from east to west within a time zone, as solar time is progressively delayed. “They documented changes in risk for every 5 degrees west from the meridian,” she said.

Dr. Johnson is a case in point of the “educational gap” that she believes needs attention. Two years ago, as chair of the sleep section of the American Academy of Neurology, she delved into the literature after the AAN asked the section whether it should endorse the AASM’s position paper on DST. “I didn’t know the literature even as a sleep scientist until I got into this,” she said.

“If you’re asked me 2 years ago,” she added in the later interview, “I would have said that permanent DST is fine.”

The sleep section recommended that the AAN endorse permanent ST, but the AAN ultimately decided it “didn’t feel strongly enough to say that standard time is unequivocally the better option,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview. “They agreed that there’s science [in favor of it], but ... it’s a big public policy decision.”

Jamie Zeitzer, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University’s Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine, voiced similar concerns at the meeting about currently advocating a shift in either direction. It’s “absolutely clear that switching clocks, especially since it’s occurring at a population level, is deleterious and we need to get rid of it,” he said. “But before we put forth dictates on public health [with a shift to permanent ST], I think we better be sure we’re correct.”

“I think we’re getting close. I think the data thus far [are indicating] that permanent standard time is better for health,” Dr. Zeitzer said. “But I don’t think there’s a cumulative amount of evidence to really say that we have to subvert all other interests because this is so important for public health. We need at least a few more studies.”

There is not enough evidence, for instance, to conclude that the body clock does not eventually adjust to DST, he said, and it is not yet clear what roles electric light and sunlight each play in the body’s circadian time.

“And we need to think about north-south. What may be important for the upper Midwest, and for Maine, and for Washington, may not be ... good for Florida and Texas and southern California,” Dr. Zeitzer said. “You have very different patterns of light exposure, especially when it deals with seasons.”
 

Historical considerations

In his comments at the meeting, Muhammad Rishi, MBBS, the lead author of the AASM’s position statement, added that circadian misalignment – that “asynchrony between the internal and external clocks” – is associated in studies with an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and depression.

But he also emphasized that the “historical evidence” against permanent DST is at least as strong as the medical evidence.

“The U.S. has gone on permanent daylight savings time several times in the past, most recently in the 1970s during the OPEC [oil embargo], and it was so unpopular,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care and sleep medicine at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire, Wis. “England also did it in the 1960s and then abolished it, and most recently Russia did it ... it became so unpopular with increased depression and mood disorders that they abolished it.”

Rep. Ward said that China has offered a large natural experiment with its move decades ago from five time zones to one time zone – Beijing time. “I don’t think we’ve seen any sweeping changes in their health because they have one large time zone,” he said.

Dr. Klerman took issue, saying she “knows someone in China who is trying to get that data about health outcomes and is unable to get it.”

Arguments that DST saves energy hold little to no weight upon scrutiny of the data, Dr. Johnson said. Moreover, research other than oft-cited, older Department of Transportation studies suggests that “permanent DST is bad for energy and bad for the climate,” she said. “This really needs to be more fully evaluated by the government and others.”

Dr. Johnson said after the meeting that it’s important for experts from the energy and climate sectors, education, and medicine – including pediatrics, oncology, and other specialties with “a stake in this” – to come together and share information so “we won’t all be in our silos.” She and other sleep experts in the neurology field are planning to host a summit in 2022 to do just this.

Dr. Johnson and Kin Yuen, MD, of the Sleep Disorders Center at the University of California, San Francisco, both expressed concern at the meeting that adoption of permanent DST would negate the benefits of delayed school start times in middle and high school students.

There is some evidence that delayed start times have led to decreased tardiness and absences, Dr. Yuen said. To have the same impact with permanent DST, “instead of starting at 8:30 a.m., you’d have to start at 9:30,” Dr. Johnson added after the meeting.

The first discussion of DST at the SLEEP 2021 meeting was led by Erin E. Flynn-Evans, PhD, MPH, director of the Fatigue Countermeasures Laboratory at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center. Dr. Yuen led a later second question-and-answer session. They and each of the eight participants reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Dr. Yuen and Dr. Flynn-Evans are both coauthors of the AASM’s position statement on DST. Dr. Klerman is a coauthor of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms 2019 position paper on DST.

The AASM’s statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American College of Chest Physicians, the SRBR, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine, the National PTA, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The reintroduction of congressional bills that aim to end seasonal time change and move permanently to daylight saving time (DST) – and action on the issue by 19 states in the last 4 years – signal political momentum and up the ante on sleep medicine to educate others and to more uniformly weigh in on the health consequences of such a change.

This was the message of several sleep scientists and physicians who participated in moderated discussions of DST at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

A position paper issued about a year ago by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine objected to the proposed switch and instead called for elimination of DST in favor of permanent standard time (ST). While there are detrimental health effects with time changes in either direction, there is “abundant” evidence that the transition from standard time to daylight saving time is worse, the AASM statement says.

Some experts have questioned, however, whether the evidence is weighty and comprehensive enough to drive a change in national policy. Others, such as SLEEP 2021 discussant Karin Johnson, MD, say there is unawareness outside of sleep medicine – and even within – of a growing body of literature on circadian misalignment and its associated health risks.

“There’s an educational gap for what’s out there [in the literature],” Dr. Johnson, medical director of the Baystate Health regional sleep program and Baystate Medical Center sleep laboratory in Springfield, Mass., said in an interview after the meeting.

Calls for more research, particularly on the chronic effects of DST and ST, are concerning because discussions of abolishing seasonal time change are “moving forward with or without us,” Kenneth Wright Jr., PhD, director of the chronobiology laboratory at the University of Colorado in Boulder and professor in the university’s department of integrative biology, said at the meeting.

“We don’t have time ... to have the studies we’d need to prove unequivocally that permanent standard time [is best]. We need to consider the scientific evidence before us – what’s known about human biology and health with respect to light and circadian timing,” Dr. Wright said. “The argument that pushing our clocks later is going to be healthier is not tenable. We cannot support that given the vast amount of scientific evidence we have from circadian and sleep science.”

Underscoring the sense of urgency to be engaged in the issue were the messages of Rep. Raymond Ward, MD, PhD, a Utah legislator in the state’s House of Representatives who introduced a bill to permanently observe DST, pending the amendment of federal law to permit such a change, and provided that five other Western states enact the same legislation.

“I chose to support DST because I became convinced this is the only thing that’s politically possible,” said Rep. Ward, a family practice physician at the Ogden Clinic in Bountiful. National polls have shown a “strong preference” to end seasonal time change, he said, and a poll conducted in his district showed that nearly 80% “wanted to stop changing the clocks, and 65% wanted the summer time schedule.”

“To me, the train seems to be moving in one direction,” said Rep. Ward. “The bills open in Congress in both the House and the Senate don’t have enough support yet, but every time another state legislature passes [legislation to establish permanent DST], they pick up a few more supporters.”

The Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 introduced in the House in January by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) has 23 cosponsors, and a bill of the same name introduced in the Senate in March by Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has 14 cosponsors. Both bills have bipartisan support and are reintroductions of legislation initially put forth in 2019. A press release issued by Sen. Rubio’s office says that “extending DST can benefit the economy and our overall health.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states have enacted legislation or passed resolutions in the last several years to provide for year-round DST, if Congress were to allow such a change. And according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on DST updated in September 2020, at least 45 states have, since 2015, proposed legislation to change their observance of DST.

These efforts include proposals to exempt a state from DST observance, which is allowable under existing law, and proposals that would establish permanent DST, which would require Congress to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966, the CRS report says.
 

The state of the science

Shifting from ST to DST has been associated with an increase in cardiovascular morbidity (heart attacks and atrial fibrillation), increased missed medical appointments, increased ED visits, increased mood disturbances and suicide risk, increased risk of fatal car crashes and medical errors – and sleep loss, said Elizabeth Klerman, MD, PhD, professor of neurology in the division of sleep medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

These associations are covered in AASM statement, along with acknowledgment that most studies on the chronic effects of DST have “either been retrospective or addressed the issue indirectly.”

For Dr. Johnson, who refers to DST as “sleep deprivation time,” the most convincing data regarding the dangers of permanent DST come from studies comparing locations within time zones. “The farther you’re off from the meridian, the more you have that ‘social jet lag’ or circadian misalignment [between the innate circadian rhythm, which is synchronized with solar time, and school or work schedules],” she said at the meeting.

Researchers reported in 2017, for instance, that the risk for all cancers and many specific cancers increased from east to west within a time zone, as solar time is progressively delayed. “They documented changes in risk for every 5 degrees west from the meridian,” she said.

Dr. Johnson is a case in point of the “educational gap” that she believes needs attention. Two years ago, as chair of the sleep section of the American Academy of Neurology, she delved into the literature after the AAN asked the section whether it should endorse the AASM’s position paper on DST. “I didn’t know the literature even as a sleep scientist until I got into this,” she said.

“If you’re asked me 2 years ago,” she added in the later interview, “I would have said that permanent DST is fine.”

The sleep section recommended that the AAN endorse permanent ST, but the AAN ultimately decided it “didn’t feel strongly enough to say that standard time is unequivocally the better option,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview. “They agreed that there’s science [in favor of it], but ... it’s a big public policy decision.”

Jamie Zeitzer, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University’s Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine, voiced similar concerns at the meeting about currently advocating a shift in either direction. It’s “absolutely clear that switching clocks, especially since it’s occurring at a population level, is deleterious and we need to get rid of it,” he said. “But before we put forth dictates on public health [with a shift to permanent ST], I think we better be sure we’re correct.”

“I think we’re getting close. I think the data thus far [are indicating] that permanent standard time is better for health,” Dr. Zeitzer said. “But I don’t think there’s a cumulative amount of evidence to really say that we have to subvert all other interests because this is so important for public health. We need at least a few more studies.”

There is not enough evidence, for instance, to conclude that the body clock does not eventually adjust to DST, he said, and it is not yet clear what roles electric light and sunlight each play in the body’s circadian time.

“And we need to think about north-south. What may be important for the upper Midwest, and for Maine, and for Washington, may not be ... good for Florida and Texas and southern California,” Dr. Zeitzer said. “You have very different patterns of light exposure, especially when it deals with seasons.”
 

Historical considerations

In his comments at the meeting, Muhammad Rishi, MBBS, the lead author of the AASM’s position statement, added that circadian misalignment – that “asynchrony between the internal and external clocks” – is associated in studies with an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and depression.

But he also emphasized that the “historical evidence” against permanent DST is at least as strong as the medical evidence.

“The U.S. has gone on permanent daylight savings time several times in the past, most recently in the 1970s during the OPEC [oil embargo], and it was so unpopular,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care and sleep medicine at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire, Wis. “England also did it in the 1960s and then abolished it, and most recently Russia did it ... it became so unpopular with increased depression and mood disorders that they abolished it.”

Rep. Ward said that China has offered a large natural experiment with its move decades ago from five time zones to one time zone – Beijing time. “I don’t think we’ve seen any sweeping changes in their health because they have one large time zone,” he said.

Dr. Klerman took issue, saying she “knows someone in China who is trying to get that data about health outcomes and is unable to get it.”

Arguments that DST saves energy hold little to no weight upon scrutiny of the data, Dr. Johnson said. Moreover, research other than oft-cited, older Department of Transportation studies suggests that “permanent DST is bad for energy and bad for the climate,” she said. “This really needs to be more fully evaluated by the government and others.”

Dr. Johnson said after the meeting that it’s important for experts from the energy and climate sectors, education, and medicine – including pediatrics, oncology, and other specialties with “a stake in this” – to come together and share information so “we won’t all be in our silos.” She and other sleep experts in the neurology field are planning to host a summit in 2022 to do just this.

Dr. Johnson and Kin Yuen, MD, of the Sleep Disorders Center at the University of California, San Francisco, both expressed concern at the meeting that adoption of permanent DST would negate the benefits of delayed school start times in middle and high school students.

There is some evidence that delayed start times have led to decreased tardiness and absences, Dr. Yuen said. To have the same impact with permanent DST, “instead of starting at 8:30 a.m., you’d have to start at 9:30,” Dr. Johnson added after the meeting.

The first discussion of DST at the SLEEP 2021 meeting was led by Erin E. Flynn-Evans, PhD, MPH, director of the Fatigue Countermeasures Laboratory at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center. Dr. Yuen led a later second question-and-answer session. They and each of the eight participants reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Dr. Yuen and Dr. Flynn-Evans are both coauthors of the AASM’s position statement on DST. Dr. Klerman is a coauthor of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms 2019 position paper on DST.

The AASM’s statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American College of Chest Physicians, the SRBR, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine, the National PTA, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The reintroduction of congressional bills that aim to end seasonal time change and move permanently to daylight saving time (DST) – and action on the issue by 19 states in the last 4 years – signal political momentum and up the ante on sleep medicine to educate others and to more uniformly weigh in on the health consequences of such a change.

This was the message of several sleep scientists and physicians who participated in moderated discussions of DST at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

A position paper issued about a year ago by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine objected to the proposed switch and instead called for elimination of DST in favor of permanent standard time (ST). While there are detrimental health effects with time changes in either direction, there is “abundant” evidence that the transition from standard time to daylight saving time is worse, the AASM statement says.

Some experts have questioned, however, whether the evidence is weighty and comprehensive enough to drive a change in national policy. Others, such as SLEEP 2021 discussant Karin Johnson, MD, say there is unawareness outside of sleep medicine – and even within – of a growing body of literature on circadian misalignment and its associated health risks.

“There’s an educational gap for what’s out there [in the literature],” Dr. Johnson, medical director of the Baystate Health regional sleep program and Baystate Medical Center sleep laboratory in Springfield, Mass., said in an interview after the meeting.

Calls for more research, particularly on the chronic effects of DST and ST, are concerning because discussions of abolishing seasonal time change are “moving forward with or without us,” Kenneth Wright Jr., PhD, director of the chronobiology laboratory at the University of Colorado in Boulder and professor in the university’s department of integrative biology, said at the meeting.

“We don’t have time ... to have the studies we’d need to prove unequivocally that permanent standard time [is best]. We need to consider the scientific evidence before us – what’s known about human biology and health with respect to light and circadian timing,” Dr. Wright said. “The argument that pushing our clocks later is going to be healthier is not tenable. We cannot support that given the vast amount of scientific evidence we have from circadian and sleep science.”

Underscoring the sense of urgency to be engaged in the issue were the messages of Rep. Raymond Ward, MD, PhD, a Utah legislator in the state’s House of Representatives who introduced a bill to permanently observe DST, pending the amendment of federal law to permit such a change, and provided that five other Western states enact the same legislation.

“I chose to support DST because I became convinced this is the only thing that’s politically possible,” said Rep. Ward, a family practice physician at the Ogden Clinic in Bountiful. National polls have shown a “strong preference” to end seasonal time change, he said, and a poll conducted in his district showed that nearly 80% “wanted to stop changing the clocks, and 65% wanted the summer time schedule.”

“To me, the train seems to be moving in one direction,” said Rep. Ward. “The bills open in Congress in both the House and the Senate don’t have enough support yet, but every time another state legislature passes [legislation to establish permanent DST], they pick up a few more supporters.”

The Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 introduced in the House in January by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) has 23 cosponsors, and a bill of the same name introduced in the Senate in March by Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has 14 cosponsors. Both bills have bipartisan support and are reintroductions of legislation initially put forth in 2019. A press release issued by Sen. Rubio’s office says that “extending DST can benefit the economy and our overall health.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states have enacted legislation or passed resolutions in the last several years to provide for year-round DST, if Congress were to allow such a change. And according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on DST updated in September 2020, at least 45 states have, since 2015, proposed legislation to change their observance of DST.

These efforts include proposals to exempt a state from DST observance, which is allowable under existing law, and proposals that would establish permanent DST, which would require Congress to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966, the CRS report says.
 

The state of the science

Shifting from ST to DST has been associated with an increase in cardiovascular morbidity (heart attacks and atrial fibrillation), increased missed medical appointments, increased ED visits, increased mood disturbances and suicide risk, increased risk of fatal car crashes and medical errors – and sleep loss, said Elizabeth Klerman, MD, PhD, professor of neurology in the division of sleep medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

These associations are covered in AASM statement, along with acknowledgment that most studies on the chronic effects of DST have “either been retrospective or addressed the issue indirectly.”

For Dr. Johnson, who refers to DST as “sleep deprivation time,” the most convincing data regarding the dangers of permanent DST come from studies comparing locations within time zones. “The farther you’re off from the meridian, the more you have that ‘social jet lag’ or circadian misalignment [between the innate circadian rhythm, which is synchronized with solar time, and school or work schedules],” she said at the meeting.

Researchers reported in 2017, for instance, that the risk for all cancers and many specific cancers increased from east to west within a time zone, as solar time is progressively delayed. “They documented changes in risk for every 5 degrees west from the meridian,” she said.

Dr. Johnson is a case in point of the “educational gap” that she believes needs attention. Two years ago, as chair of the sleep section of the American Academy of Neurology, she delved into the literature after the AAN asked the section whether it should endorse the AASM’s position paper on DST. “I didn’t know the literature even as a sleep scientist until I got into this,” she said.

“If you’re asked me 2 years ago,” she added in the later interview, “I would have said that permanent DST is fine.”

The sleep section recommended that the AAN endorse permanent ST, but the AAN ultimately decided it “didn’t feel strongly enough to say that standard time is unequivocally the better option,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview. “They agreed that there’s science [in favor of it], but ... it’s a big public policy decision.”

Jamie Zeitzer, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University’s Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine, voiced similar concerns at the meeting about currently advocating a shift in either direction. It’s “absolutely clear that switching clocks, especially since it’s occurring at a population level, is deleterious and we need to get rid of it,” he said. “But before we put forth dictates on public health [with a shift to permanent ST], I think we better be sure we’re correct.”

“I think we’re getting close. I think the data thus far [are indicating] that permanent standard time is better for health,” Dr. Zeitzer said. “But I don’t think there’s a cumulative amount of evidence to really say that we have to subvert all other interests because this is so important for public health. We need at least a few more studies.”

There is not enough evidence, for instance, to conclude that the body clock does not eventually adjust to DST, he said, and it is not yet clear what roles electric light and sunlight each play in the body’s circadian time.

“And we need to think about north-south. What may be important for the upper Midwest, and for Maine, and for Washington, may not be ... good for Florida and Texas and southern California,” Dr. Zeitzer said. “You have very different patterns of light exposure, especially when it deals with seasons.”
 

Historical considerations

In his comments at the meeting, Muhammad Rishi, MBBS, the lead author of the AASM’s position statement, added that circadian misalignment – that “asynchrony between the internal and external clocks” – is associated in studies with an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and depression.

But he also emphasized that the “historical evidence” against permanent DST is at least as strong as the medical evidence.

“The U.S. has gone on permanent daylight savings time several times in the past, most recently in the 1970s during the OPEC [oil embargo], and it was so unpopular,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care and sleep medicine at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire, Wis. “England also did it in the 1960s and then abolished it, and most recently Russia did it ... it became so unpopular with increased depression and mood disorders that they abolished it.”

Rep. Ward said that China has offered a large natural experiment with its move decades ago from five time zones to one time zone – Beijing time. “I don’t think we’ve seen any sweeping changes in their health because they have one large time zone,” he said.

Dr. Klerman took issue, saying she “knows someone in China who is trying to get that data about health outcomes and is unable to get it.”

Arguments that DST saves energy hold little to no weight upon scrutiny of the data, Dr. Johnson said. Moreover, research other than oft-cited, older Department of Transportation studies suggests that “permanent DST is bad for energy and bad for the climate,” she said. “This really needs to be more fully evaluated by the government and others.”

Dr. Johnson said after the meeting that it’s important for experts from the energy and climate sectors, education, and medicine – including pediatrics, oncology, and other specialties with “a stake in this” – to come together and share information so “we won’t all be in our silos.” She and other sleep experts in the neurology field are planning to host a summit in 2022 to do just this.

Dr. Johnson and Kin Yuen, MD, of the Sleep Disorders Center at the University of California, San Francisco, both expressed concern at the meeting that adoption of permanent DST would negate the benefits of delayed school start times in middle and high school students.

There is some evidence that delayed start times have led to decreased tardiness and absences, Dr. Yuen said. To have the same impact with permanent DST, “instead of starting at 8:30 a.m., you’d have to start at 9:30,” Dr. Johnson added after the meeting.

The first discussion of DST at the SLEEP 2021 meeting was led by Erin E. Flynn-Evans, PhD, MPH, director of the Fatigue Countermeasures Laboratory at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center. Dr. Yuen led a later second question-and-answer session. They and each of the eight participants reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

Dr. Yuen and Dr. Flynn-Evans are both coauthors of the AASM’s position statement on DST. Dr. Klerman is a coauthor of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms 2019 position paper on DST.

The AASM’s statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American College of Chest Physicians, the SRBR, the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine, the National PTA, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The heterogeneous clinical course of atopic dermatitis (AD) and its differing signs, symptoms, burden, and response to treatment can pose a quandary for physicians.

This is behind a new classification framework called DESCRIBE-AD, proposed by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, not only as a way to standardize the assessment of AD in clinical practice – but also to improve the classification of AD in clinical practice and clinical trials, facilitate tailoring of therapy to individual patient characteristics, and better identify therapeutically relevant disease subsets.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, debuted DESCRIBE-AD during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. The “D” in the mnemonic stands for dermatitis morphology and phenotype, the “E” for evolution of disease, the “S” for symptom severity, the “C” for comorbid health disorders, the “R” for response to therapy, the “I” for intensity of lesions, the “B” for burden of disease, and the “E” for extent of lesions.

At the meeting, he discussed the concepts behind each letter of the mnemonic.
 

Dermatitis morphology and phenotype

In the dermatitis morphology and phenotype component of DESCRIBE-AD, “there’s a lot to consider,” he said. “There are chronic signs like lichenification and prurigo nodules, which have treatment ramifications,” such as the length of time patients may need to be treated, and possibly “the use of more potent, targeted options to go after some of these lesions.”

Recent studies suggest that nummular lesions have a different underlying pathogenesis suggesting an overlap between Th2 and Th17 cell–mediated lesions. “How does that impact response to targeted therapies?” he asked. “We have no idea. We need to learn that.” He noted that psoriasiform lesions are not limited to Asian patients, but also appear in elderly patients with AD. “They look different [in elderly patients] and they may respond differently; they have more psoriasiform lesions and it’s not exactly clear why.”

Other morphologic variants of AD to be aware of include follicular eczema, xerosis, and the itch-dominant form, which Dr. Silverberg and colleagues addressed in a recently published study. “There are some patients who have milder-looking lesions, but their itch is just out of control,” he said. “This is a pattern that we need to recognize.”

Evolution of disease, symptom severity

Factors to consider for the evolution of disease component of the proposed classification include age of AD onset or disease recurrence, frequency and duration of flares, disease activity between flares, periods of disease clearance, and the overall disease trajectory. “We do get patients who say that every year their disease seems to get worse over time, for reasons that are not always clear,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Assessment tools he recommends for the symptom severity component of DESCRIBE-AD include the patient-reported global AD severity, numerical rating scale (NRS) worst or average itch in the past 7 days, the Skin Pain NRS, and the Sleep Quality NRS, which each take fewer than 30 seconds to complete. “You can have your nurses do this or can you have the patients fill out the form in the waiting area before they see you,” Dr. Silverberg said.

He also advises asking patients about the number of nights they experience sleep disturbance and if they have difficulty falling asleep or have nighttime awakenings because of their AD. Symptoms of anxiety and depression can be assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Patient-Health Questionnaire–9, which each take 2-3 minutes to complete.

Recommended assessment tools for other symptoms – such as bleeding, oozing, and xerosis – include the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, which takes 2-3 minutes to complete, and the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool or the Recap of Atopic Eczema, which each take 2-3 minutes to complete.
 

Comorbid health disorders

Comorbid health disorders linked to AD are varied and include atopic comorbidities such as asthma or wheeze, hay fever or oculonasal symptoms, food allergy, recurrent infections such as herpes simplex virus, mental health disorders, alopecia areata, Th1-mediated comorbidities, and adverse events to medication such as venous thromboembolism, hypertension, and impaired renal or liver function. “All of these are important because if the patients have these at baseline, they may not be good candidates for some therapies that cause these types of side effects,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Response to therapy, intensity of lesions

As for response to therapy, clinicians can ask patients, “How do you feel you’re improving?” But it’s also important to assess the signs, symptoms, frequency of flares, and comorbidities as part of that response to therapy, “and of course the adverse events and treatment burden,” he said.

For the intensity of lesions component of DESCRIBE-AD, Dr. Silverberg said that the Investigator’s Global Assessment–AD is an effective tool for clinical use. “You can also use tools like the Eczema Area and Severity Index or the Scoring AD, but recognize these are challenging,” and can be difficult to use if not well trained to use them, he said. “At the very least, do an Investigator’s Global Assessment and do a body surface area measurement.”

In his opinion, four key signs that should be assessed in clinical trials are erythema, edema/papulation, excoriation, and lichenification/prurigo nodules.
 

Burden of disease

In terms of assessing AD disease burden, guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology don’t give a specific tool to use, but recommend asking open-ended questions, Dr. Silverberg said. “I would not recommend that, because when you ask an open-ended question, the flood gates open up because most patients are suffering miserably with this disease when it’s uncontrolled.

“That’s why it’s valuable to use structured, validated tools like the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System. They don’t take a lot of time to complete, and you can look at the score and determine how burdensome their disease is, even in a busy clinical practice. They’re not going to slow you down; they’re going to speed you up and make you better at your therapeutic decision-making. I can guarantee you that most patients will love you for it. Sometimes patients say to me, ‘you’re the first doctor to ask these questions.’ ”
 

Extent of disease

Finally, for the extent of disease component of DESCRIBE-AD, he emphasized the importance of doing a full-body exam to appreciate the affected body surface area, flexural versus extensor distribution, and involvement and severity of disease on special sites such as the face, hands, feet, genitals, and scalp.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The heterogeneous clinical course of atopic dermatitis (AD) and its differing signs, symptoms, burden, and response to treatment can pose a quandary for physicians.

This is behind a new classification framework called DESCRIBE-AD, proposed by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, not only as a way to standardize the assessment of AD in clinical practice – but also to improve the classification of AD in clinical practice and clinical trials, facilitate tailoring of therapy to individual patient characteristics, and better identify therapeutically relevant disease subsets.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, debuted DESCRIBE-AD during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. The “D” in the mnemonic stands for dermatitis morphology and phenotype, the “E” for evolution of disease, the “S” for symptom severity, the “C” for comorbid health disorders, the “R” for response to therapy, the “I” for intensity of lesions, the “B” for burden of disease, and the “E” for extent of lesions.

At the meeting, he discussed the concepts behind each letter of the mnemonic.
 

Dermatitis morphology and phenotype

In the dermatitis morphology and phenotype component of DESCRIBE-AD, “there’s a lot to consider,” he said. “There are chronic signs like lichenification and prurigo nodules, which have treatment ramifications,” such as the length of time patients may need to be treated, and possibly “the use of more potent, targeted options to go after some of these lesions.”

Recent studies suggest that nummular lesions have a different underlying pathogenesis suggesting an overlap between Th2 and Th17 cell–mediated lesions. “How does that impact response to targeted therapies?” he asked. “We have no idea. We need to learn that.” He noted that psoriasiform lesions are not limited to Asian patients, but also appear in elderly patients with AD. “They look different [in elderly patients] and they may respond differently; they have more psoriasiform lesions and it’s not exactly clear why.”

Other morphologic variants of AD to be aware of include follicular eczema, xerosis, and the itch-dominant form, which Dr. Silverberg and colleagues addressed in a recently published study. “There are some patients who have milder-looking lesions, but their itch is just out of control,” he said. “This is a pattern that we need to recognize.”

Evolution of disease, symptom severity

Factors to consider for the evolution of disease component of the proposed classification include age of AD onset or disease recurrence, frequency and duration of flares, disease activity between flares, periods of disease clearance, and the overall disease trajectory. “We do get patients who say that every year their disease seems to get worse over time, for reasons that are not always clear,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Assessment tools he recommends for the symptom severity component of DESCRIBE-AD include the patient-reported global AD severity, numerical rating scale (NRS) worst or average itch in the past 7 days, the Skin Pain NRS, and the Sleep Quality NRS, which each take fewer than 30 seconds to complete. “You can have your nurses do this or can you have the patients fill out the form in the waiting area before they see you,” Dr. Silverberg said.

He also advises asking patients about the number of nights they experience sleep disturbance and if they have difficulty falling asleep or have nighttime awakenings because of their AD. Symptoms of anxiety and depression can be assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Patient-Health Questionnaire–9, which each take 2-3 minutes to complete.

Recommended assessment tools for other symptoms – such as bleeding, oozing, and xerosis – include the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, which takes 2-3 minutes to complete, and the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool or the Recap of Atopic Eczema, which each take 2-3 minutes to complete.
 

Comorbid health disorders

Comorbid health disorders linked to AD are varied and include atopic comorbidities such as asthma or wheeze, hay fever or oculonasal symptoms, food allergy, recurrent infections such as herpes simplex virus, mental health disorders, alopecia areata, Th1-mediated comorbidities, and adverse events to medication such as venous thromboembolism, hypertension, and impaired renal or liver function. “All of these are important because if the patients have these at baseline, they may not be good candidates for some therapies that cause these types of side effects,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Response to therapy, intensity of lesions

As for response to therapy, clinicians can ask patients, “How do you feel you’re improving?” But it’s also important to assess the signs, symptoms, frequency of flares, and comorbidities as part of that response to therapy, “and of course the adverse events and treatment burden,” he said.

For the intensity of lesions component of DESCRIBE-AD, Dr. Silverberg said that the Investigator’s Global Assessment–AD is an effective tool for clinical use. “You can also use tools like the Eczema Area and Severity Index or the Scoring AD, but recognize these are challenging,” and can be difficult to use if not well trained to use them, he said. “At the very least, do an Investigator’s Global Assessment and do a body surface area measurement.”

In his opinion, four key signs that should be assessed in clinical trials are erythema, edema/papulation, excoriation, and lichenification/prurigo nodules.
 

Burden of disease

In terms of assessing AD disease burden, guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology don’t give a specific tool to use, but recommend asking open-ended questions, Dr. Silverberg said. “I would not recommend that, because when you ask an open-ended question, the flood gates open up because most patients are suffering miserably with this disease when it’s uncontrolled.

“That’s why it’s valuable to use structured, validated tools like the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System. They don’t take a lot of time to complete, and you can look at the score and determine how burdensome their disease is, even in a busy clinical practice. They’re not going to slow you down; they’re going to speed you up and make you better at your therapeutic decision-making. I can guarantee you that most patients will love you for it. Sometimes patients say to me, ‘you’re the first doctor to ask these questions.’ ”
 

Extent of disease

Finally, for the extent of disease component of DESCRIBE-AD, he emphasized the importance of doing a full-body exam to appreciate the affected body surface area, flexural versus extensor distribution, and involvement and severity of disease on special sites such as the face, hands, feet, genitals, and scalp.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The heterogeneous clinical course of atopic dermatitis (AD) and its differing signs, symptoms, burden, and response to treatment can pose a quandary for physicians.

This is behind a new classification framework called DESCRIBE-AD, proposed by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, not only as a way to standardize the assessment of AD in clinical practice – but also to improve the classification of AD in clinical practice and clinical trials, facilitate tailoring of therapy to individual patient characteristics, and better identify therapeutically relevant disease subsets.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, debuted DESCRIBE-AD during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. The “D” in the mnemonic stands for dermatitis morphology and phenotype, the “E” for evolution of disease, the “S” for symptom severity, the “C” for comorbid health disorders, the “R” for response to therapy, the “I” for intensity of lesions, the “B” for burden of disease, and the “E” for extent of lesions.

At the meeting, he discussed the concepts behind each letter of the mnemonic.
 

Dermatitis morphology and phenotype

In the dermatitis morphology and phenotype component of DESCRIBE-AD, “there’s a lot to consider,” he said. “There are chronic signs like lichenification and prurigo nodules, which have treatment ramifications,” such as the length of time patients may need to be treated, and possibly “the use of more potent, targeted options to go after some of these lesions.”

Recent studies suggest that nummular lesions have a different underlying pathogenesis suggesting an overlap between Th2 and Th17 cell–mediated lesions. “How does that impact response to targeted therapies?” he asked. “We have no idea. We need to learn that.” He noted that psoriasiform lesions are not limited to Asian patients, but also appear in elderly patients with AD. “They look different [in elderly patients] and they may respond differently; they have more psoriasiform lesions and it’s not exactly clear why.”

Other morphologic variants of AD to be aware of include follicular eczema, xerosis, and the itch-dominant form, which Dr. Silverberg and colleagues addressed in a recently published study. “There are some patients who have milder-looking lesions, but their itch is just out of control,” he said. “This is a pattern that we need to recognize.”

Evolution of disease, symptom severity

Factors to consider for the evolution of disease component of the proposed classification include age of AD onset or disease recurrence, frequency and duration of flares, disease activity between flares, periods of disease clearance, and the overall disease trajectory. “We do get patients who say that every year their disease seems to get worse over time, for reasons that are not always clear,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Assessment tools he recommends for the symptom severity component of DESCRIBE-AD include the patient-reported global AD severity, numerical rating scale (NRS) worst or average itch in the past 7 days, the Skin Pain NRS, and the Sleep Quality NRS, which each take fewer than 30 seconds to complete. “You can have your nurses do this or can you have the patients fill out the form in the waiting area before they see you,” Dr. Silverberg said.

He also advises asking patients about the number of nights they experience sleep disturbance and if they have difficulty falling asleep or have nighttime awakenings because of their AD. Symptoms of anxiety and depression can be assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Patient-Health Questionnaire–9, which each take 2-3 minutes to complete.

Recommended assessment tools for other symptoms – such as bleeding, oozing, and xerosis – include the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, which takes 2-3 minutes to complete, and the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool or the Recap of Atopic Eczema, which each take 2-3 minutes to complete.
 

Comorbid health disorders

Comorbid health disorders linked to AD are varied and include atopic comorbidities such as asthma or wheeze, hay fever or oculonasal symptoms, food allergy, recurrent infections such as herpes simplex virus, mental health disorders, alopecia areata, Th1-mediated comorbidities, and adverse events to medication such as venous thromboembolism, hypertension, and impaired renal or liver function. “All of these are important because if the patients have these at baseline, they may not be good candidates for some therapies that cause these types of side effects,” Dr. Silverberg said.

Response to therapy, intensity of lesions

As for response to therapy, clinicians can ask patients, “How do you feel you’re improving?” But it’s also important to assess the signs, symptoms, frequency of flares, and comorbidities as part of that response to therapy, “and of course the adverse events and treatment burden,” he said.

For the intensity of lesions component of DESCRIBE-AD, Dr. Silverberg said that the Investigator’s Global Assessment–AD is an effective tool for clinical use. “You can also use tools like the Eczema Area and Severity Index or the Scoring AD, but recognize these are challenging,” and can be difficult to use if not well trained to use them, he said. “At the very least, do an Investigator’s Global Assessment and do a body surface area measurement.”

In his opinion, four key signs that should be assessed in clinical trials are erythema, edema/papulation, excoriation, and lichenification/prurigo nodules.
 

Burden of disease

In terms of assessing AD disease burden, guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology don’t give a specific tool to use, but recommend asking open-ended questions, Dr. Silverberg said. “I would not recommend that, because when you ask an open-ended question, the flood gates open up because most patients are suffering miserably with this disease when it’s uncontrolled.

“That’s why it’s valuable to use structured, validated tools like the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System. They don’t take a lot of time to complete, and you can look at the score and determine how burdensome their disease is, even in a busy clinical practice. They’re not going to slow you down; they’re going to speed you up and make you better at your therapeutic decision-making. I can guarantee you that most patients will love you for it. Sometimes patients say to me, ‘you’re the first doctor to ask these questions.’ ”
 

Extent of disease

Finally, for the extent of disease component of DESCRIBE-AD, he emphasized the importance of doing a full-body exam to appreciate the affected body surface area, flexural versus extensor distribution, and involvement and severity of disease on special sites such as the face, hands, feet, genitals, and scalp.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Persistent long COVID symptoms affect approximately 6% of children 3 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2, according to new research.

The prevalence of long COVID in children has been unclear, and is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition, said Anna Funk, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary (Alba.), during her online presentation of the findings at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

In the several small studies conducted to date, rates range from 0% to 67% 2-4 months after infection, Dr. Funk reported.

To examine prevalence, she and her colleagues, as part of the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) global research consortium, assessed more than 10,500 children who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 when they presented to the ED at 1 of 41 study sites in 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, plus three countries in Latin America and three in Western Europe – from March 2020 to June 15, 2021.

PERN researchers are following up with the more than 3,100 children who tested positive 14, 30, and 90 days after testing, tracking respiratory, neurologic, and psychobehavioral sequelae.

Dr. Funk presented data on the 1,884 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Jan. 20, 2021, and who had completed 90-day follow-up; 447 of those children were hospitalized and 1,437 were not.

Symptoms were reported more often by children admitted to the hospital than not admitted (9.8% vs. 4.6%). Common persistent symptoms were respiratory in 2% of cases, systemic (such as fatigue and fever) in 2%, neurologic (such as headache, seizures, and continued loss of taste or smell) in 1%, and psychological (such as new-onset depression and anxiety) in 1%.

“This study provides the first good epidemiological data on persistent symptoms among SARS-CoV-2–infected children, regardless of severity,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease clinician and researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.

And the findings show that, although severe COVID and chronic symptoms are less common in children than in adults, they are “not nonexistent and need to be taken seriously,” he said in an interview.

After adjustment for country of enrollment, children aged 10-17 years were more likely to experience persistent symptoms than children younger than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .002).

Hospitalized children were more than twice as likely to experience persistent symptoms as nonhospitalized children (OR, 2.5; P < .001). And children who presented to the ED with at least seven symptoms were four times more likely to have long-term symptoms than those who presented with fewer symptoms (OR, 4.02; P = .01).
 

‘Some reassurance’

“Given that COVID is new and is known to have acute cardiac and neurologic effects, particularly in children with [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], there were initially concerns about persistent cardiovascular and neurologic effects in any infected child,” Dr. Messacar explained. “These data provide some reassurance that this is uncommon among children with mild or moderate infections who are not hospitalized.”

But “the risk is not zero,” he added. “Getting children vaccinated when it is available to them and taking precautions to prevent unvaccinated children getting COVID is the best way to reduce the risk of severe disease or persistent symptoms.”

The study was limited by its lack of data on variants, reliance on self-reported symptoms, and a population drawn solely from EDs, Dr. Funk acknowledged.

No external funding source was noted. Dr. Messacar and Dr. Funk disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Persistent long COVID symptoms affect approximately 6% of children 3 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2, according to new research.

The prevalence of long COVID in children has been unclear, and is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition, said Anna Funk, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary (Alba.), during her online presentation of the findings at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

In the several small studies conducted to date, rates range from 0% to 67% 2-4 months after infection, Dr. Funk reported.

To examine prevalence, she and her colleagues, as part of the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) global research consortium, assessed more than 10,500 children who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 when they presented to the ED at 1 of 41 study sites in 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, plus three countries in Latin America and three in Western Europe – from March 2020 to June 15, 2021.

PERN researchers are following up with the more than 3,100 children who tested positive 14, 30, and 90 days after testing, tracking respiratory, neurologic, and psychobehavioral sequelae.

Dr. Funk presented data on the 1,884 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Jan. 20, 2021, and who had completed 90-day follow-up; 447 of those children were hospitalized and 1,437 were not.

Symptoms were reported more often by children admitted to the hospital than not admitted (9.8% vs. 4.6%). Common persistent symptoms were respiratory in 2% of cases, systemic (such as fatigue and fever) in 2%, neurologic (such as headache, seizures, and continued loss of taste or smell) in 1%, and psychological (such as new-onset depression and anxiety) in 1%.

“This study provides the first good epidemiological data on persistent symptoms among SARS-CoV-2–infected children, regardless of severity,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease clinician and researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.

And the findings show that, although severe COVID and chronic symptoms are less common in children than in adults, they are “not nonexistent and need to be taken seriously,” he said in an interview.

After adjustment for country of enrollment, children aged 10-17 years were more likely to experience persistent symptoms than children younger than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .002).

Hospitalized children were more than twice as likely to experience persistent symptoms as nonhospitalized children (OR, 2.5; P < .001). And children who presented to the ED with at least seven symptoms were four times more likely to have long-term symptoms than those who presented with fewer symptoms (OR, 4.02; P = .01).
 

‘Some reassurance’

“Given that COVID is new and is known to have acute cardiac and neurologic effects, particularly in children with [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], there were initially concerns about persistent cardiovascular and neurologic effects in any infected child,” Dr. Messacar explained. “These data provide some reassurance that this is uncommon among children with mild or moderate infections who are not hospitalized.”

But “the risk is not zero,” he added. “Getting children vaccinated when it is available to them and taking precautions to prevent unvaccinated children getting COVID is the best way to reduce the risk of severe disease or persistent symptoms.”

The study was limited by its lack of data on variants, reliance on self-reported symptoms, and a population drawn solely from EDs, Dr. Funk acknowledged.

No external funding source was noted. Dr. Messacar and Dr. Funk disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Persistent long COVID symptoms affect approximately 6% of children 3 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2, according to new research.

The prevalence of long COVID in children has been unclear, and is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition, said Anna Funk, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary (Alba.), during her online presentation of the findings at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

In the several small studies conducted to date, rates range from 0% to 67% 2-4 months after infection, Dr. Funk reported.

To examine prevalence, she and her colleagues, as part of the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) global research consortium, assessed more than 10,500 children who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 when they presented to the ED at 1 of 41 study sites in 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, plus three countries in Latin America and three in Western Europe – from March 2020 to June 15, 2021.

PERN researchers are following up with the more than 3,100 children who tested positive 14, 30, and 90 days after testing, tracking respiratory, neurologic, and psychobehavioral sequelae.

Dr. Funk presented data on the 1,884 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Jan. 20, 2021, and who had completed 90-day follow-up; 447 of those children were hospitalized and 1,437 were not.

Symptoms were reported more often by children admitted to the hospital than not admitted (9.8% vs. 4.6%). Common persistent symptoms were respiratory in 2% of cases, systemic (such as fatigue and fever) in 2%, neurologic (such as headache, seizures, and continued loss of taste or smell) in 1%, and psychological (such as new-onset depression and anxiety) in 1%.

“This study provides the first good epidemiological data on persistent symptoms among SARS-CoV-2–infected children, regardless of severity,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease clinician and researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.

And the findings show that, although severe COVID and chronic symptoms are less common in children than in adults, they are “not nonexistent and need to be taken seriously,” he said in an interview.

After adjustment for country of enrollment, children aged 10-17 years were more likely to experience persistent symptoms than children younger than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .002).

Hospitalized children were more than twice as likely to experience persistent symptoms as nonhospitalized children (OR, 2.5; P < .001). And children who presented to the ED with at least seven symptoms were four times more likely to have long-term symptoms than those who presented with fewer symptoms (OR, 4.02; P = .01).
 

‘Some reassurance’

“Given that COVID is new and is known to have acute cardiac and neurologic effects, particularly in children with [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], there were initially concerns about persistent cardiovascular and neurologic effects in any infected child,” Dr. Messacar explained. “These data provide some reassurance that this is uncommon among children with mild or moderate infections who are not hospitalized.”

But “the risk is not zero,” he added. “Getting children vaccinated when it is available to them and taking precautions to prevent unvaccinated children getting COVID is the best way to reduce the risk of severe disease or persistent symptoms.”

The study was limited by its lack of data on variants, reliance on self-reported symptoms, and a population drawn solely from EDs, Dr. Funk acknowledged.

No external funding source was noted. Dr. Messacar and Dr. Funk disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.

The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.

The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.

“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”

Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.

Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.

Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.

All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.

The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”

A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.

‘Some protection is better than none’

These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.

It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.

“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.

“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.

“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
 

Temporarily stopping methotrexate

It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.

Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.

“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”

Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.

However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.

This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.

The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.

The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.

“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”

Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.

Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.

Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.

All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.

The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”

A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.

‘Some protection is better than none’

These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.

It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.

“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.

“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.

“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
 

Temporarily stopping methotrexate

It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.

Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.

“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”

Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.

However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.

This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.

The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.

The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.

“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”

Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.

Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.

Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.

All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.

The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”

A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.

‘Some protection is better than none’

These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.

It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.

“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.

“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.

“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
 

Temporarily stopping methotrexate

It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.

Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.

“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”

Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.

However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.

This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be offered transarterial radioembolization (TARE) as a safe and effective first-line treatment or adjunct to other locoregional therapies, authors of a large multicenter study reported.

Among 422 patients with HCC treated with TARE in eight European countries, the median overall survival was 16.5 months, with fewer than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or greater adverse events, reported Frank Kolligs, MD, from Helios Hospital Berlin-Buch.

“This exploratory study evaluated factors that can influence the application and outcome of transarterial radioembolization in clinical practice. TARE is generally applied according to guideline recommendations, and randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of personalized dosimetry on the effectiveness of TARE,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Intriguingly, the investigators found evidence suggesting that patients whose treatments were planned using a partition model had better survival outcomes than those patients who treatments were based on calculated body surface area or measured BSA (mBSA), but this finding will need to be explored in more detail, Dr. Kolligs said.

The partition model incorporates variables such as tumor volume and liver volume, shunt fractions, the ratio of radiation uptake between tumor and normal tissues, vascular anatomy and other factors to estimate the optimal dose.
 

Study design

Dr. Kolligs and colleagues looked at prospective data from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Registry for SIR-Spheres Therapy to evaluate the real-world clinical application of TARE with yttrium Y-90 resin microspheres in Europe, clinical outcomes, safety, and quality of life.

They selected data from centers with a minimum of 10 cases performed in the previous 12 months and at least 40 total cases overall.

The patients included adults 18 years and older scheduled for treatment with Y-90 resin microspheres for primary or metastatic liver tumors, with no specific exclusion criteria. The patients were followed for at least 24 months at recommended intervals of every 3 months. The first patient was enrolled in January 2015, and the last follow-up visit was in December 2019. A total of 422 registry patients had a diagnosis of HCC and were included in the study.

The median age was 68 years (range, 60-74), 80.8% were male, 70.9% had cirrhosis, 14.5% had ascites, and 8.5% had extrahepatic disease. About 32% of patients had one tumor nodule, 33% had two to five nodules, and the remainder had either more than five or an uncountable number.

In all, 14% of patients had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A disease, 51.4% had stage B, 33.6% had stage C, and 0.9% stage D.

About one-third of patients had portal vein occlusion. Tumors were in both left and right lobes in 35.5%, the left lobe alone in 12.1%, and the right lobe alone in 52.4%.

Half of all patients (50.2%) received TARE as first-line therapy, 44.8% had it following surgery (17.1%), ablation (14.7%), and/or transarterial chemoembolization (; 23%). In addition, 9.7% of patients received systemic therapy prior to TARE, primarily with sorafenib (Nexavar).

Treatment intent was palliative for 57.3% of patients, and tumor downsizing/downstaging in 32.5% (remainder unspecified).
 

Survival and prognostic factors

As noted before, median overall survival was 16.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and median hepatic PFS was 6.7 months.

Factors prognostic for better overall survival included hepatitis B or C virus as the cirrhosis cause versus alcohol (hazard ratio for death, 0.51 for each; P = .0060 for HBV and P = .0007 for HCV); unilobar versus bilobar tumors (HR, 0.67; P = .0422 for left-lobe; HR 0.55; P < .0001 for right); prior surgery (HR, 0.67; P = .0258); prior ablation (HR, 0.65; P = .0394); and curative versus palliative intent (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

Factors associated with worse overall survival were presence of ascites (HR 1.75, P = .001); presence of extrahepatic disease before TARE (HR, 1.81, P = .0037); tumor burden greater than 5 nodules (HR, 1.67; P = .0073); main portal vein occlusion (HR, 2.14; P = .0064); lobar portal vein occlusion (HR, 1.77; P = .0083); total bilirubin greater than 1.5 mg/dL (HR, 1.69; P = .0094); albumin-bilirubin grade A2 (HR, 1.66; P = .0005); ALB1 grade A3 (HR, 3.92; P < .0001); and BSA/mBSA versus partition-model dosimetry (HR, 1.89; P < .0001).

The safety analysis showed that 36.7% of patients had at least one adverse event, but only 7.1% had at least one grade 3 or greater event.

Grade 3 or greater events were abdominal pain (nine patients), fatigue (six), nausea (three), radioembolization-induced liver disease (three), vomiting (two), and GI ulceration (one). Fifteen additional patients had other unspecified events.

The investigators acknowledged broad inclusion criteria, relatively high rates of loss to follow-up, and differences in national guidelines and local standards of practice as potential limitations to their findings.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, session comoderator María Varela, MD, PhD, a pathologist in the liver unit at the Hospital Universitario Central de Asturia, Oviedo, Spain, questioned why about one-third of patients received TARE for downstaging, but only 13 underwent subsequent surgical resection.

“We don’t have a detailed analysis of this subgroup of patients who received curative intent as yet, ” Dr. Kolligs said.

Pierre Nahon, MD, from the University of Paris and Hôpital Jean Verdier in Bondy, France, commented that, among this heterogenous population, one of the best indications for TARE is probably localized HCC with adjacent portal vein thrombosis.

He asked whether the investigators had examined overall survival among patients with localized unilobar HCC with adjacent small portal vein thrombosis.

“We find that patients with portal vein occlusion have a worse prognosis in the total group,” Dr. Kolligs replied. “To look into the question whether partial thrombosis with a small tumor might benefit is an interesting question, and we should look into that, but I don’t have any data on that yet.”

Another audience member asked: “According to your data, which patients are the best candidates for radioembolization?”

“According to these data, the best candidates are of course patients with good liver function, ascites should ideally not be present, and what is probably is important is that we identify or include patients without extrahepatic disease,” he said.

The study was sponsored by CIRSE. Dr. Kolligs disclosed speaking activities and consulting for several companies. Dr. Varela disclosed speaking for several companies and advisory board activity for Bayer. Dr. Nahon disclosed honoraria and consulting fees from several companies.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be offered transarterial radioembolization (TARE) as a safe and effective first-line treatment or adjunct to other locoregional therapies, authors of a large multicenter study reported.

Among 422 patients with HCC treated with TARE in eight European countries, the median overall survival was 16.5 months, with fewer than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or greater adverse events, reported Frank Kolligs, MD, from Helios Hospital Berlin-Buch.

“This exploratory study evaluated factors that can influence the application and outcome of transarterial radioembolization in clinical practice. TARE is generally applied according to guideline recommendations, and randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of personalized dosimetry on the effectiveness of TARE,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Intriguingly, the investigators found evidence suggesting that patients whose treatments were planned using a partition model had better survival outcomes than those patients who treatments were based on calculated body surface area or measured BSA (mBSA), but this finding will need to be explored in more detail, Dr. Kolligs said.

The partition model incorporates variables such as tumor volume and liver volume, shunt fractions, the ratio of radiation uptake between tumor and normal tissues, vascular anatomy and other factors to estimate the optimal dose.
 

Study design

Dr. Kolligs and colleagues looked at prospective data from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Registry for SIR-Spheres Therapy to evaluate the real-world clinical application of TARE with yttrium Y-90 resin microspheres in Europe, clinical outcomes, safety, and quality of life.

They selected data from centers with a minimum of 10 cases performed in the previous 12 months and at least 40 total cases overall.

The patients included adults 18 years and older scheduled for treatment with Y-90 resin microspheres for primary or metastatic liver tumors, with no specific exclusion criteria. The patients were followed for at least 24 months at recommended intervals of every 3 months. The first patient was enrolled in January 2015, and the last follow-up visit was in December 2019. A total of 422 registry patients had a diagnosis of HCC and were included in the study.

The median age was 68 years (range, 60-74), 80.8% were male, 70.9% had cirrhosis, 14.5% had ascites, and 8.5% had extrahepatic disease. About 32% of patients had one tumor nodule, 33% had two to five nodules, and the remainder had either more than five or an uncountable number.

In all, 14% of patients had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A disease, 51.4% had stage B, 33.6% had stage C, and 0.9% stage D.

About one-third of patients had portal vein occlusion. Tumors were in both left and right lobes in 35.5%, the left lobe alone in 12.1%, and the right lobe alone in 52.4%.

Half of all patients (50.2%) received TARE as first-line therapy, 44.8% had it following surgery (17.1%), ablation (14.7%), and/or transarterial chemoembolization (; 23%). In addition, 9.7% of patients received systemic therapy prior to TARE, primarily with sorafenib (Nexavar).

Treatment intent was palliative for 57.3% of patients, and tumor downsizing/downstaging in 32.5% (remainder unspecified).
 

Survival and prognostic factors

As noted before, median overall survival was 16.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and median hepatic PFS was 6.7 months.

Factors prognostic for better overall survival included hepatitis B or C virus as the cirrhosis cause versus alcohol (hazard ratio for death, 0.51 for each; P = .0060 for HBV and P = .0007 for HCV); unilobar versus bilobar tumors (HR, 0.67; P = .0422 for left-lobe; HR 0.55; P < .0001 for right); prior surgery (HR, 0.67; P = .0258); prior ablation (HR, 0.65; P = .0394); and curative versus palliative intent (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

Factors associated with worse overall survival were presence of ascites (HR 1.75, P = .001); presence of extrahepatic disease before TARE (HR, 1.81, P = .0037); tumor burden greater than 5 nodules (HR, 1.67; P = .0073); main portal vein occlusion (HR, 2.14; P = .0064); lobar portal vein occlusion (HR, 1.77; P = .0083); total bilirubin greater than 1.5 mg/dL (HR, 1.69; P = .0094); albumin-bilirubin grade A2 (HR, 1.66; P = .0005); ALB1 grade A3 (HR, 3.92; P < .0001); and BSA/mBSA versus partition-model dosimetry (HR, 1.89; P < .0001).

The safety analysis showed that 36.7% of patients had at least one adverse event, but only 7.1% had at least one grade 3 or greater event.

Grade 3 or greater events were abdominal pain (nine patients), fatigue (six), nausea (three), radioembolization-induced liver disease (three), vomiting (two), and GI ulceration (one). Fifteen additional patients had other unspecified events.

The investigators acknowledged broad inclusion criteria, relatively high rates of loss to follow-up, and differences in national guidelines and local standards of practice as potential limitations to their findings.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, session comoderator María Varela, MD, PhD, a pathologist in the liver unit at the Hospital Universitario Central de Asturia, Oviedo, Spain, questioned why about one-third of patients received TARE for downstaging, but only 13 underwent subsequent surgical resection.

“We don’t have a detailed analysis of this subgroup of patients who received curative intent as yet, ” Dr. Kolligs said.

Pierre Nahon, MD, from the University of Paris and Hôpital Jean Verdier in Bondy, France, commented that, among this heterogenous population, one of the best indications for TARE is probably localized HCC with adjacent portal vein thrombosis.

He asked whether the investigators had examined overall survival among patients with localized unilobar HCC with adjacent small portal vein thrombosis.

“We find that patients with portal vein occlusion have a worse prognosis in the total group,” Dr. Kolligs replied. “To look into the question whether partial thrombosis with a small tumor might benefit is an interesting question, and we should look into that, but I don’t have any data on that yet.”

Another audience member asked: “According to your data, which patients are the best candidates for radioembolization?”

“According to these data, the best candidates are of course patients with good liver function, ascites should ideally not be present, and what is probably is important is that we identify or include patients without extrahepatic disease,” he said.

The study was sponsored by CIRSE. Dr. Kolligs disclosed speaking activities and consulting for several companies. Dr. Varela disclosed speaking for several companies and advisory board activity for Bayer. Dr. Nahon disclosed honoraria and consulting fees from several companies.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be offered transarterial radioembolization (TARE) as a safe and effective first-line treatment or adjunct to other locoregional therapies, authors of a large multicenter study reported.

Among 422 patients with HCC treated with TARE in eight European countries, the median overall survival was 16.5 months, with fewer than 10% of patients experiencing grade 3 or greater adverse events, reported Frank Kolligs, MD, from Helios Hospital Berlin-Buch.

“This exploratory study evaluated factors that can influence the application and outcome of transarterial radioembolization in clinical practice. TARE is generally applied according to guideline recommendations, and randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of personalized dosimetry on the effectiveness of TARE,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Intriguingly, the investigators found evidence suggesting that patients whose treatments were planned using a partition model had better survival outcomes than those patients who treatments were based on calculated body surface area or measured BSA (mBSA), but this finding will need to be explored in more detail, Dr. Kolligs said.

The partition model incorporates variables such as tumor volume and liver volume, shunt fractions, the ratio of radiation uptake between tumor and normal tissues, vascular anatomy and other factors to estimate the optimal dose.
 

Study design

Dr. Kolligs and colleagues looked at prospective data from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) Registry for SIR-Spheres Therapy to evaluate the real-world clinical application of TARE with yttrium Y-90 resin microspheres in Europe, clinical outcomes, safety, and quality of life.

They selected data from centers with a minimum of 10 cases performed in the previous 12 months and at least 40 total cases overall.

The patients included adults 18 years and older scheduled for treatment with Y-90 resin microspheres for primary or metastatic liver tumors, with no specific exclusion criteria. The patients were followed for at least 24 months at recommended intervals of every 3 months. The first patient was enrolled in January 2015, and the last follow-up visit was in December 2019. A total of 422 registry patients had a diagnosis of HCC and were included in the study.

The median age was 68 years (range, 60-74), 80.8% were male, 70.9% had cirrhosis, 14.5% had ascites, and 8.5% had extrahepatic disease. About 32% of patients had one tumor nodule, 33% had two to five nodules, and the remainder had either more than five or an uncountable number.

In all, 14% of patients had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A disease, 51.4% had stage B, 33.6% had stage C, and 0.9% stage D.

About one-third of patients had portal vein occlusion. Tumors were in both left and right lobes in 35.5%, the left lobe alone in 12.1%, and the right lobe alone in 52.4%.

Half of all patients (50.2%) received TARE as first-line therapy, 44.8% had it following surgery (17.1%), ablation (14.7%), and/or transarterial chemoembolization (; 23%). In addition, 9.7% of patients received systemic therapy prior to TARE, primarily with sorafenib (Nexavar).

Treatment intent was palliative for 57.3% of patients, and tumor downsizing/downstaging in 32.5% (remainder unspecified).
 

Survival and prognostic factors

As noted before, median overall survival was 16.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and median hepatic PFS was 6.7 months.

Factors prognostic for better overall survival included hepatitis B or C virus as the cirrhosis cause versus alcohol (hazard ratio for death, 0.51 for each; P = .0060 for HBV and P = .0007 for HCV); unilobar versus bilobar tumors (HR, 0.67; P = .0422 for left-lobe; HR 0.55; P < .0001 for right); prior surgery (HR, 0.67; P = .0258); prior ablation (HR, 0.65; P = .0394); and curative versus palliative intent (HR, 0.53; P < .0001).

Factors associated with worse overall survival were presence of ascites (HR 1.75, P = .001); presence of extrahepatic disease before TARE (HR, 1.81, P = .0037); tumor burden greater than 5 nodules (HR, 1.67; P = .0073); main portal vein occlusion (HR, 2.14; P = .0064); lobar portal vein occlusion (HR, 1.77; P = .0083); total bilirubin greater than 1.5 mg/dL (HR, 1.69; P = .0094); albumin-bilirubin grade A2 (HR, 1.66; P = .0005); ALB1 grade A3 (HR, 3.92; P < .0001); and BSA/mBSA versus partition-model dosimetry (HR, 1.89; P < .0001).

The safety analysis showed that 36.7% of patients had at least one adverse event, but only 7.1% had at least one grade 3 or greater event.

Grade 3 or greater events were abdominal pain (nine patients), fatigue (six), nausea (three), radioembolization-induced liver disease (three), vomiting (two), and GI ulceration (one). Fifteen additional patients had other unspecified events.

The investigators acknowledged broad inclusion criteria, relatively high rates of loss to follow-up, and differences in national guidelines and local standards of practice as potential limitations to their findings.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, session comoderator María Varela, MD, PhD, a pathologist in the liver unit at the Hospital Universitario Central de Asturia, Oviedo, Spain, questioned why about one-third of patients received TARE for downstaging, but only 13 underwent subsequent surgical resection.

“We don’t have a detailed analysis of this subgroup of patients who received curative intent as yet, ” Dr. Kolligs said.

Pierre Nahon, MD, from the University of Paris and Hôpital Jean Verdier in Bondy, France, commented that, among this heterogenous population, one of the best indications for TARE is probably localized HCC with adjacent portal vein thrombosis.

He asked whether the investigators had examined overall survival among patients with localized unilobar HCC with adjacent small portal vein thrombosis.

“We find that patients with portal vein occlusion have a worse prognosis in the total group,” Dr. Kolligs replied. “To look into the question whether partial thrombosis with a small tumor might benefit is an interesting question, and we should look into that, but I don’t have any data on that yet.”

Another audience member asked: “According to your data, which patients are the best candidates for radioembolization?”

“According to these data, the best candidates are of course patients with good liver function, ascites should ideally not be present, and what is probably is important is that we identify or include patients without extrahepatic disease,” he said.

The study was sponsored by CIRSE. Dr. Kolligs disclosed speaking activities and consulting for several companies. Dr. Varela disclosed speaking for several companies and advisory board activity for Bayer. Dr. Nahon disclosed honoraria and consulting fees from several companies.

Data from a long-term study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for men with hypogonadism may reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on whether there is a benefit.

The latest results come from a study of 805 men with hypogonadism from Germany and Qatar who were followed for nearly a decade. For those who received parenteral testosterone 1,000 mg every 12 weeks, there were improvements in classical cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, lipid level, and inflammatory markers, whereas among those who chose not to take testosterone (control patients), all of these factors worsened.

In addition, there were only 16 deaths among patients in the TRT group, and none of the deaths were from myocardial infarction or stroke. In contrast, there were 74 deaths among the control patients, as well as 70 cases of MI and 59 strokes.

The men in the study were all at relatively high risk for cardiovascular adverse events. In the TRT group, the mean Framingham Risk score was 15.5; in the control group, it was 15.8. This translates into mean 10-year risks of 22.7% and 23.5%, respectively.

“Given that all these men would normally have been expected to suffer a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years with no other intervention, it was a real surprise to see no cardiovascular events at all in the group on testosterone therapy. It’s clear that this treatment can significantly reduce the risks in this particular group,” commented lead investigator Omar Aboumarzouk, MD, from Hamad Medical in Doha, Qatar.

He presented the new data at the 2021 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

Dr. Aboumarzouk emphasized, however, that, “while men need testosterone for certain psychological and biological functions, only those with low levels who display other symptoms are likely to benefit from testosterone therapy.”

Maarten Albersen, MD, a urologist at the University of Leuven (Belgium), who was not involved in the study, noted that, although the study showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality among the men who received TRT, the risk scores were in the intermediate range, and the men in the TRT group were slightly younger and were at slightly lower risk at baseline.

“The study was long enough to see differences in the rate of cardiovascular events. However, the numbers involved and the fact that the trial was not randomized mean it’s still difficult to draw any hard conclusions,” he said.
 

Registry study

The data came from a cumulative registry study begun in 2004 to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of TRT every 3 months in men with hypogonadism. The study, conducted in Bremen, Dresden, and Muenster in Germany, as well as in Doha, Qatar, is ongoing.

At total of 805 men were enrolled; 412 received TRT, and 393 declined testosterone replacement and served as control patients.

The investigators reported 10-year data. Statistical models controlled for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, total and HDL cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.

The median age at baseline was lower among those in the TRT arm, at 57.7 years versus 63.7 years for control patients (P < .001).

All classical cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, glycemic control, lipid pattern, and C-reactive protein, improved in the TRT group and worsened in the control group.

Dr. Albersen noted that “a new trial is now underway, aiming to recruit 6,000 participants, and this should provide definitive answers on the cardiovascular risks or even benefits of hormone therapy in men with low testosterone.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Aboumarzouk and Dr. Albersen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from a long-term study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for men with hypogonadism may reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on whether there is a benefit.

The latest results come from a study of 805 men with hypogonadism from Germany and Qatar who were followed for nearly a decade. For those who received parenteral testosterone 1,000 mg every 12 weeks, there were improvements in classical cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, lipid level, and inflammatory markers, whereas among those who chose not to take testosterone (control patients), all of these factors worsened.

In addition, there were only 16 deaths among patients in the TRT group, and none of the deaths were from myocardial infarction or stroke. In contrast, there were 74 deaths among the control patients, as well as 70 cases of MI and 59 strokes.

The men in the study were all at relatively high risk for cardiovascular adverse events. In the TRT group, the mean Framingham Risk score was 15.5; in the control group, it was 15.8. This translates into mean 10-year risks of 22.7% and 23.5%, respectively.

“Given that all these men would normally have been expected to suffer a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years with no other intervention, it was a real surprise to see no cardiovascular events at all in the group on testosterone therapy. It’s clear that this treatment can significantly reduce the risks in this particular group,” commented lead investigator Omar Aboumarzouk, MD, from Hamad Medical in Doha, Qatar.

He presented the new data at the 2021 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

Dr. Aboumarzouk emphasized, however, that, “while men need testosterone for certain psychological and biological functions, only those with low levels who display other symptoms are likely to benefit from testosterone therapy.”

Maarten Albersen, MD, a urologist at the University of Leuven (Belgium), who was not involved in the study, noted that, although the study showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality among the men who received TRT, the risk scores were in the intermediate range, and the men in the TRT group were slightly younger and were at slightly lower risk at baseline.

“The study was long enough to see differences in the rate of cardiovascular events. However, the numbers involved and the fact that the trial was not randomized mean it’s still difficult to draw any hard conclusions,” he said.
 

Registry study

The data came from a cumulative registry study begun in 2004 to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of TRT every 3 months in men with hypogonadism. The study, conducted in Bremen, Dresden, and Muenster in Germany, as well as in Doha, Qatar, is ongoing.

At total of 805 men were enrolled; 412 received TRT, and 393 declined testosterone replacement and served as control patients.

The investigators reported 10-year data. Statistical models controlled for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, total and HDL cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.

The median age at baseline was lower among those in the TRT arm, at 57.7 years versus 63.7 years for control patients (P < .001).

All classical cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, glycemic control, lipid pattern, and C-reactive protein, improved in the TRT group and worsened in the control group.

Dr. Albersen noted that “a new trial is now underway, aiming to recruit 6,000 participants, and this should provide definitive answers on the cardiovascular risks or even benefits of hormone therapy in men with low testosterone.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Aboumarzouk and Dr. Albersen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from a long-term study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for men with hypogonadism may reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Previous studies have yielded conflicting results on whether there is a benefit.

The latest results come from a study of 805 men with hypogonadism from Germany and Qatar who were followed for nearly a decade. For those who received parenteral testosterone 1,000 mg every 12 weeks, there were improvements in classical cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, lipid level, and inflammatory markers, whereas among those who chose not to take testosterone (control patients), all of these factors worsened.

In addition, there were only 16 deaths among patients in the TRT group, and none of the deaths were from myocardial infarction or stroke. In contrast, there were 74 deaths among the control patients, as well as 70 cases of MI and 59 strokes.

The men in the study were all at relatively high risk for cardiovascular adverse events. In the TRT group, the mean Framingham Risk score was 15.5; in the control group, it was 15.8. This translates into mean 10-year risks of 22.7% and 23.5%, respectively.

“Given that all these men would normally have been expected to suffer a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years with no other intervention, it was a real surprise to see no cardiovascular events at all in the group on testosterone therapy. It’s clear that this treatment can significantly reduce the risks in this particular group,” commented lead investigator Omar Aboumarzouk, MD, from Hamad Medical in Doha, Qatar.

He presented the new data at the 2021 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

Dr. Aboumarzouk emphasized, however, that, “while men need testosterone for certain psychological and biological functions, only those with low levels who display other symptoms are likely to benefit from testosterone therapy.”

Maarten Albersen, MD, a urologist at the University of Leuven (Belgium), who was not involved in the study, noted that, although the study showed a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality among the men who received TRT, the risk scores were in the intermediate range, and the men in the TRT group were slightly younger and were at slightly lower risk at baseline.

“The study was long enough to see differences in the rate of cardiovascular events. However, the numbers involved and the fact that the trial was not randomized mean it’s still difficult to draw any hard conclusions,” he said.
 

Registry study

The data came from a cumulative registry study begun in 2004 to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of TRT every 3 months in men with hypogonadism. The study, conducted in Bremen, Dresden, and Muenster in Germany, as well as in Doha, Qatar, is ongoing.

At total of 805 men were enrolled; 412 received TRT, and 393 declined testosterone replacement and served as control patients.

The investigators reported 10-year data. Statistical models controlled for age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, total and HDL cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.

The median age at baseline was lower among those in the TRT arm, at 57.7 years versus 63.7 years for control patients (P < .001).

All classical cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, glycemic control, lipid pattern, and C-reactive protein, improved in the TRT group and worsened in the control group.

Dr. Albersen noted that “a new trial is now underway, aiming to recruit 6,000 participants, and this should provide definitive answers on the cardiovascular risks or even benefits of hormone therapy in men with low testosterone.”

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Aboumarzouk and Dr. Albersen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants are increasingly performed in the United States in people with type 2 diabetes who also have chronic kidney disease, with outcomes similar to those of people with type 1 diabetes.

Traditionally, recipients of pancreas transplants have been people with type 1 diabetes who also have either chronic kidney disease (CKD) or hypoglycemic unawareness. The former group could receive either a simultaneous pancreas-kidney or a pancreas after kidney transplant, while the latter – if they have normal kidney function – would be eligible for a pancreas transplant alone.

But increasingly in recent years, patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD have been receiving simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants, with similar success rates to those of people with type 1 diabetes.

Such candidates are typically sufficiently fit, not morbidly obese, and taking insulin regardless of their C-peptide status, said Jon S. Odorico, MD, professor of surgery and director of pancreas and islet transplantation at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Transplant Program.

“One might ask: Is it a crazy idea to do a pancreas transplant for patients with type 2 diabetes? Based on the known mechanisms of hyperglycemia in these patients, it might seem so,” he said, noting that while individuals with type 2 diabetes usually have insulin resistance, many also have relative or absolute deficiency of insulin production.

“So by replacing beta-cell mass, pancreas transplantation addresses this beta-cell defect mechanism,” he explained when discussing the topic during a symposium held June 26 at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions.

Arguments in favor of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant in people with type 2 diabetes and CKD include the fact that type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease in the United States – roughly 50-60% of candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list also have type 2 diabetes – and that kidney transplant alone tends to worsen diabetes control due to the required immunosuppression.

Moreover, due to a 2014 allocation policy change that separates simultaneous pancreas-kidney from kidney transplant–alone donor organs, waiting times are shorter for the former, and kidney quality is generally better than for kidney transplant alone, unless a living kidney donor is available.

And, Dr. Odorico added, “adding a pancreas to a kidney transplant does not appear to jeopardize patient survival or kidney graft survival in appropriately selected patients with diabetes.” However, he also noted that because type 2 diabetes is so heterogeneous, ideal candidates for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant are not yet clear.

Currently, people with type 2 diabetes account for about 20% of those receiving simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants and about 50% of pancreas after kidney transplants. Few pancreas transplants alone are performed in type 2 diabetes because those individuals rarely experience severe life-threatening hypoglycemia, Dr. Odorico explained.
 

Criteria have shifted over time, C-peptide removed in 2019

In an interview, symposium moderator Peter G. Stock, MD, PhD, surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program at the University of California, San Francisco, said he agreed that “it’s a surprising trend. It doesn’t make intuitive sense. In type 1 diabetes, it makes sense to replace the beta cells. But type 2 is due to a whole cluster of etiologies ... The view in the public domain is that it’s not due to the lack of insulin but problems with insulin resistance and obesity. So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to give you more insulin if it’s a receptor problem.”

But Dr. Stock noted that because in the past diabetes type wasn’t always rigorously assessed using C-peptide and antibody testing, which most centers measure today, “a number of transplants were done in people who turned out to have type 2. Our perception is that everybody who has type 2 is obese, but that’s not true anymore.”

Once it became apparent that some patients with type 2 diabetes who received pancreas transplants seemed to be doing well, the pancreas transplantation committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) established general criteria for the procedure in people with diabetes. They had to be taking insulin and have a C-peptide value of 2 ng/mL or below or taking insulin with a C-peptide greater than 2 ng/mL and a body mass index less than or equal to the maximum allowable BMI (28 kg/m² at the time).

Dr. Stock, who chaired that committee from 2005 to 2007, said: “We thought it was risky to offer a scarce pool of donor pancreases to people with type 2 when we had people with type 1 who we know will benefit from it. So initially, the committee decided to limit pancreas transplantation to those with type 2 who have fairly low insulin requirements and BMIs that are more in the range of people with type 1. And lo and behold the results were comparable.”

Subsequent to Dr. Stock’s tenure as chair, the UNOS committee decided that the BMI and C-peptide criteria for simultaneous pancreas-kidney were no longer scientifically justifiable and were potentially discriminatory both to minority populations with type 2 diabetes and people with type 1 diabetes who have a high BMI, so in 2019, they removed them.

Individual transplant centers must follow UNOS rules, but they can also add their own criteria. Some don’t perform simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants in people with type 2 diabetes at all.

At Dr. Odorico’s center, which began doing so in 2012, patients with type 2 diabetes account for nearly 40% of all simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants. Indications there include age 20-60 years, insulin dependent with requirements less than 1 unit/kg/day, CKD stage 3-5, predialysis or on dialysis, and BMI <33 kg/m².

“They are highly selected and a fairly fit group of patients,” Dr. Odorico noted.

Those who don’t meet all the requirements for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants may still be eligible for kidney transplant alone, from either a living or deceased donor, he said.

Dr. Stock’s criteria at UCSF are even more stringent for both BMI and insulin requirements.

SPK outcomes similar for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: Emerging data

Data to guide this area are accumulating slowly. Thus far, all studies have been retrospective and have used variable definitions for diabetes type and for graft failure. However, they’re fairly consistent in showing similar outcomes by diabetes type and little impact of C-peptide level on patient survival or survival of either kidney or pancreas graft, particularly after adjustment for confounding factors between the two types.

In a study from Dr. Odorico’s center of 284 type 1 and 39 type 2 diabetes patients undergoing simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant between 2006 and 2017, pretransplant BMI and insulin requirements did not affect patient or graft survival in either type. There was a suggestion of greater risk for post-transplant diabetes with very high pretransplant insulin requirements (>75 units/day) but the numbers were too small to be definitive.  

“It’s clear we will be doing more pancreas transplants in the future in this group of patients, and it’s ripe for further investigation,” Dr. Odorico concluded.
 

Beta cells for all?

Dr. Stock added one more aspect. While of course whole-organ transplantation is limited by the shortage of human donors, stem cell–derived beta cells could potentially produce an unlimited supply. Both Dr. Stock and Dr. Odorico are working on different approaches to this.

“We’re really close,” he said, noting, “the data we get for people with type 2 diabetes undergoing solid organ pancreas transplant could also be applied to cellular therapy ... We need to get a better understanding of which patients will benefit. The data we have so far are very promising.”

Dr. Odorico is scientific founder, stock equity holder, scientific advisory board chair, and a prior grant support recipient from Regenerative Medical Solutions. He has reported receiving clinical trial support from Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, CareDx, Natera, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stock has reported being on the scientific advisory board of Encellin and receives funding from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and National Institutes of Health.

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

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants are increasingly performed in the United States in people with type 2 diabetes who also have chronic kidney disease, with outcomes similar to those of people with type 1 diabetes.

Traditionally, recipients of pancreas transplants have been people with type 1 diabetes who also have either chronic kidney disease (CKD) or hypoglycemic unawareness. The former group could receive either a simultaneous pancreas-kidney or a pancreas after kidney transplant, while the latter – if they have normal kidney function – would be eligible for a pancreas transplant alone.

But increasingly in recent years, patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD have been receiving simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants, with similar success rates to those of people with type 1 diabetes.

Such candidates are typically sufficiently fit, not morbidly obese, and taking insulin regardless of their C-peptide status, said Jon S. Odorico, MD, professor of surgery and director of pancreas and islet transplantation at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Transplant Program.

“One might ask: Is it a crazy idea to do a pancreas transplant for patients with type 2 diabetes? Based on the known mechanisms of hyperglycemia in these patients, it might seem so,” he said, noting that while individuals with type 2 diabetes usually have insulin resistance, many also have relative or absolute deficiency of insulin production.

“So by replacing beta-cell mass, pancreas transplantation addresses this beta-cell defect mechanism,” he explained when discussing the topic during a symposium held June 26 at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions.

Arguments in favor of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant in people with type 2 diabetes and CKD include the fact that type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease in the United States – roughly 50-60% of candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list also have type 2 diabetes – and that kidney transplant alone tends to worsen diabetes control due to the required immunosuppression.

Moreover, due to a 2014 allocation policy change that separates simultaneous pancreas-kidney from kidney transplant–alone donor organs, waiting times are shorter for the former, and kidney quality is generally better than for kidney transplant alone, unless a living kidney donor is available.

And, Dr. Odorico added, “adding a pancreas to a kidney transplant does not appear to jeopardize patient survival or kidney graft survival in appropriately selected patients with diabetes.” However, he also noted that because type 2 diabetes is so heterogeneous, ideal candidates for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant are not yet clear.

Currently, people with type 2 diabetes account for about 20% of those receiving simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants and about 50% of pancreas after kidney transplants. Few pancreas transplants alone are performed in type 2 diabetes because those individuals rarely experience severe life-threatening hypoglycemia, Dr. Odorico explained.
 

Criteria have shifted over time, C-peptide removed in 2019

In an interview, symposium moderator Peter G. Stock, MD, PhD, surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program at the University of California, San Francisco, said he agreed that “it’s a surprising trend. It doesn’t make intuitive sense. In type 1 diabetes, it makes sense to replace the beta cells. But type 2 is due to a whole cluster of etiologies ... The view in the public domain is that it’s not due to the lack of insulin but problems with insulin resistance and obesity. So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to give you more insulin if it’s a receptor problem.”

But Dr. Stock noted that because in the past diabetes type wasn’t always rigorously assessed using C-peptide and antibody testing, which most centers measure today, “a number of transplants were done in people who turned out to have type 2. Our perception is that everybody who has type 2 is obese, but that’s not true anymore.”

Once it became apparent that some patients with type 2 diabetes who received pancreas transplants seemed to be doing well, the pancreas transplantation committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) established general criteria for the procedure in people with diabetes. They had to be taking insulin and have a C-peptide value of 2 ng/mL or below or taking insulin with a C-peptide greater than 2 ng/mL and a body mass index less than or equal to the maximum allowable BMI (28 kg/m² at the time).

Dr. Stock, who chaired that committee from 2005 to 2007, said: “We thought it was risky to offer a scarce pool of donor pancreases to people with type 2 when we had people with type 1 who we know will benefit from it. So initially, the committee decided to limit pancreas transplantation to those with type 2 who have fairly low insulin requirements and BMIs that are more in the range of people with type 1. And lo and behold the results were comparable.”

Subsequent to Dr. Stock’s tenure as chair, the UNOS committee decided that the BMI and C-peptide criteria for simultaneous pancreas-kidney were no longer scientifically justifiable and were potentially discriminatory both to minority populations with type 2 diabetes and people with type 1 diabetes who have a high BMI, so in 2019, they removed them.

Individual transplant centers must follow UNOS rules, but they can also add their own criteria. Some don’t perform simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants in people with type 2 diabetes at all.

At Dr. Odorico’s center, which began doing so in 2012, patients with type 2 diabetes account for nearly 40% of all simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants. Indications there include age 20-60 years, insulin dependent with requirements less than 1 unit/kg/day, CKD stage 3-5, predialysis or on dialysis, and BMI <33 kg/m².

“They are highly selected and a fairly fit group of patients,” Dr. Odorico noted.

Those who don’t meet all the requirements for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants may still be eligible for kidney transplant alone, from either a living or deceased donor, he said.

Dr. Stock’s criteria at UCSF are even more stringent for both BMI and insulin requirements.

SPK outcomes similar for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: Emerging data

Data to guide this area are accumulating slowly. Thus far, all studies have been retrospective and have used variable definitions for diabetes type and for graft failure. However, they’re fairly consistent in showing similar outcomes by diabetes type and little impact of C-peptide level on patient survival or survival of either kidney or pancreas graft, particularly after adjustment for confounding factors between the two types.

In a study from Dr. Odorico’s center of 284 type 1 and 39 type 2 diabetes patients undergoing simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant between 2006 and 2017, pretransplant BMI and insulin requirements did not affect patient or graft survival in either type. There was a suggestion of greater risk for post-transplant diabetes with very high pretransplant insulin requirements (>75 units/day) but the numbers were too small to be definitive.  

“It’s clear we will be doing more pancreas transplants in the future in this group of patients, and it’s ripe for further investigation,” Dr. Odorico concluded.
 

Beta cells for all?

Dr. Stock added one more aspect. While of course whole-organ transplantation is limited by the shortage of human donors, stem cell–derived beta cells could potentially produce an unlimited supply. Both Dr. Stock and Dr. Odorico are working on different approaches to this.

“We’re really close,” he said, noting, “the data we get for people with type 2 diabetes undergoing solid organ pancreas transplant could also be applied to cellular therapy ... We need to get a better understanding of which patients will benefit. The data we have so far are very promising.”

Dr. Odorico is scientific founder, stock equity holder, scientific advisory board chair, and a prior grant support recipient from Regenerative Medical Solutions. He has reported receiving clinical trial support from Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, CareDx, Natera, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stock has reported being on the scientific advisory board of Encellin and receives funding from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and National Institutes of Health.

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

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants are increasingly performed in the United States in people with type 2 diabetes who also have chronic kidney disease, with outcomes similar to those of people with type 1 diabetes.

Traditionally, recipients of pancreas transplants have been people with type 1 diabetes who also have either chronic kidney disease (CKD) or hypoglycemic unawareness. The former group could receive either a simultaneous pancreas-kidney or a pancreas after kidney transplant, while the latter – if they have normal kidney function – would be eligible for a pancreas transplant alone.

But increasingly in recent years, patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD have been receiving simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants, with similar success rates to those of people with type 1 diabetes.

Such candidates are typically sufficiently fit, not morbidly obese, and taking insulin regardless of their C-peptide status, said Jon S. Odorico, MD, professor of surgery and director of pancreas and islet transplantation at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Transplant Program.

“One might ask: Is it a crazy idea to do a pancreas transplant for patients with type 2 diabetes? Based on the known mechanisms of hyperglycemia in these patients, it might seem so,” he said, noting that while individuals with type 2 diabetes usually have insulin resistance, many also have relative or absolute deficiency of insulin production.

“So by replacing beta-cell mass, pancreas transplantation addresses this beta-cell defect mechanism,” he explained when discussing the topic during a symposium held June 26 at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions.

Arguments in favor of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant in people with type 2 diabetes and CKD include the fact that type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease in the United States – roughly 50-60% of candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list also have type 2 diabetes – and that kidney transplant alone tends to worsen diabetes control due to the required immunosuppression.

Moreover, due to a 2014 allocation policy change that separates simultaneous pancreas-kidney from kidney transplant–alone donor organs, waiting times are shorter for the former, and kidney quality is generally better than for kidney transplant alone, unless a living kidney donor is available.

And, Dr. Odorico added, “adding a pancreas to a kidney transplant does not appear to jeopardize patient survival or kidney graft survival in appropriately selected patients with diabetes.” However, he also noted that because type 2 diabetes is so heterogeneous, ideal candidates for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant are not yet clear.

Currently, people with type 2 diabetes account for about 20% of those receiving simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants and about 50% of pancreas after kidney transplants. Few pancreas transplants alone are performed in type 2 diabetes because those individuals rarely experience severe life-threatening hypoglycemia, Dr. Odorico explained.
 

Criteria have shifted over time, C-peptide removed in 2019

In an interview, symposium moderator Peter G. Stock, MD, PhD, surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program at the University of California, San Francisco, said he agreed that “it’s a surprising trend. It doesn’t make intuitive sense. In type 1 diabetes, it makes sense to replace the beta cells. But type 2 is due to a whole cluster of etiologies ... The view in the public domain is that it’s not due to the lack of insulin but problems with insulin resistance and obesity. So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to give you more insulin if it’s a receptor problem.”

But Dr. Stock noted that because in the past diabetes type wasn’t always rigorously assessed using C-peptide and antibody testing, which most centers measure today, “a number of transplants were done in people who turned out to have type 2. Our perception is that everybody who has type 2 is obese, but that’s not true anymore.”

Once it became apparent that some patients with type 2 diabetes who received pancreas transplants seemed to be doing well, the pancreas transplantation committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) established general criteria for the procedure in people with diabetes. They had to be taking insulin and have a C-peptide value of 2 ng/mL or below or taking insulin with a C-peptide greater than 2 ng/mL and a body mass index less than or equal to the maximum allowable BMI (28 kg/m² at the time).

Dr. Stock, who chaired that committee from 2005 to 2007, said: “We thought it was risky to offer a scarce pool of donor pancreases to people with type 2 when we had people with type 1 who we know will benefit from it. So initially, the committee decided to limit pancreas transplantation to those with type 2 who have fairly low insulin requirements and BMIs that are more in the range of people with type 1. And lo and behold the results were comparable.”

Subsequent to Dr. Stock’s tenure as chair, the UNOS committee decided that the BMI and C-peptide criteria for simultaneous pancreas-kidney were no longer scientifically justifiable and were potentially discriminatory both to minority populations with type 2 diabetes and people with type 1 diabetes who have a high BMI, so in 2019, they removed them.

Individual transplant centers must follow UNOS rules, but they can also add their own criteria. Some don’t perform simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants in people with type 2 diabetes at all.

At Dr. Odorico’s center, which began doing so in 2012, patients with type 2 diabetes account for nearly 40% of all simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants. Indications there include age 20-60 years, insulin dependent with requirements less than 1 unit/kg/day, CKD stage 3-5, predialysis or on dialysis, and BMI <33 kg/m².

“They are highly selected and a fairly fit group of patients,” Dr. Odorico noted.

Those who don’t meet all the requirements for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants may still be eligible for kidney transplant alone, from either a living or deceased donor, he said.

Dr. Stock’s criteria at UCSF are even more stringent for both BMI and insulin requirements.

SPK outcomes similar for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: Emerging data

Data to guide this area are accumulating slowly. Thus far, all studies have been retrospective and have used variable definitions for diabetes type and for graft failure. However, they’re fairly consistent in showing similar outcomes by diabetes type and little impact of C-peptide level on patient survival or survival of either kidney or pancreas graft, particularly after adjustment for confounding factors between the two types.

In a study from Dr. Odorico’s center of 284 type 1 and 39 type 2 diabetes patients undergoing simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant between 2006 and 2017, pretransplant BMI and insulin requirements did not affect patient or graft survival in either type. There was a suggestion of greater risk for post-transplant diabetes with very high pretransplant insulin requirements (>75 units/day) but the numbers were too small to be definitive.  

“It’s clear we will be doing more pancreas transplants in the future in this group of patients, and it’s ripe for further investigation,” Dr. Odorico concluded.
 

Beta cells for all?

Dr. Stock added one more aspect. While of course whole-organ transplantation is limited by the shortage of human donors, stem cell–derived beta cells could potentially produce an unlimited supply. Both Dr. Stock and Dr. Odorico are working on different approaches to this.

“We’re really close,” he said, noting, “the data we get for people with type 2 diabetes undergoing solid organ pancreas transplant could also be applied to cellular therapy ... We need to get a better understanding of which patients will benefit. The data we have so far are very promising.”

Dr. Odorico is scientific founder, stock equity holder, scientific advisory board chair, and a prior grant support recipient from Regenerative Medical Solutions. He has reported receiving clinical trial support from Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, CareDx, Natera, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Stock has reported being on the scientific advisory board of Encellin and receives funding from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and National Institutes of Health.

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