The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ripretinib (Qinlock, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals) tablets as the first-ever drug specifically approved as a fourth-line treatment for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

A new kinase inhibitor, ripretinib is indicated for patients previously treated with three or more other kinase inhibitor therapies, including imatinib.

“Despite the progress that has been made over the past 20 years in developing treatments for GIST … some patients don’t respond to treatment and their tumors continue to progress. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have exhausted all FDA-approved therapies for GIST,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Dr. Pazdur explained that the FDA has previously approved four targeted therapies for GISTs – imatinib in 2002, sunitinib in 2006, regorafenib in 2013, and avapritinib in 2020.

The new approval of ripretinib is based on the results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that enrolled 129 patients with advanced GISTs whose disease progressed despite prior treatment with the other targeted therapies.

In the trial, patients received ripretinib or placebo once a day in 28-day cycles, until disease progression, or intolerable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months in the ripretinib arm versus 1 month in the placebo arm.

The most common side effects with ripretinib were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and vomiting.

Ripretinib also can cause skin cancer, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction manifested as ejection fraction decrease.

The FDA collaborated with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and Health Canada on the review of this application as part of Project Orbis.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ripretinib (Qinlock, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals) tablets as the first-ever drug specifically approved as a fourth-line treatment for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

A new kinase inhibitor, ripretinib is indicated for patients previously treated with three or more other kinase inhibitor therapies, including imatinib.

“Despite the progress that has been made over the past 20 years in developing treatments for GIST … some patients don’t respond to treatment and their tumors continue to progress. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have exhausted all FDA-approved therapies for GIST,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Dr. Pazdur explained that the FDA has previously approved four targeted therapies for GISTs – imatinib in 2002, sunitinib in 2006, regorafenib in 2013, and avapritinib in 2020.

The new approval of ripretinib is based on the results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that enrolled 129 patients with advanced GISTs whose disease progressed despite prior treatment with the other targeted therapies.

In the trial, patients received ripretinib or placebo once a day in 28-day cycles, until disease progression, or intolerable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months in the ripretinib arm versus 1 month in the placebo arm.

The most common side effects with ripretinib were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and vomiting.

Ripretinib also can cause skin cancer, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction manifested as ejection fraction decrease.

The FDA collaborated with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and Health Canada on the review of this application as part of Project Orbis.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ripretinib (Qinlock, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals) tablets as the first-ever drug specifically approved as a fourth-line treatment for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

A new kinase inhibitor, ripretinib is indicated for patients previously treated with three or more other kinase inhibitor therapies, including imatinib.

“Despite the progress that has been made over the past 20 years in developing treatments for GIST … some patients don’t respond to treatment and their tumors continue to progress. Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients who have exhausted all FDA-approved therapies for GIST,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Dr. Pazdur explained that the FDA has previously approved four targeted therapies for GISTs – imatinib in 2002, sunitinib in 2006, regorafenib in 2013, and avapritinib in 2020.

The new approval of ripretinib is based on the results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that enrolled 129 patients with advanced GISTs whose disease progressed despite prior treatment with the other targeted therapies.

In the trial, patients received ripretinib or placebo once a day in 28-day cycles, until disease progression, or intolerable toxicity.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months in the ripretinib arm versus 1 month in the placebo arm.

The most common side effects with ripretinib were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and vomiting.

Ripretinib also can cause skin cancer, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction manifested as ejection fraction decrease.

The FDA collaborated with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and Health Canada on the review of this application as part of Project Orbis.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Energy-based therapy with adjunctive oxymetazoline was safe and improved facial erythema for patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea, according to results from a phase 4 study.

“The current study was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oxymetazoline when used as an adjunctive treatment with energy‐based therapy for patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea,” wrote Emil A. Tanghetti, MD, of the Center for Dermatology and Laser Surgery in Sacramento, and coauthors. The findings were published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.

The open-label, interventional study included 46 patients with rosacea, with moderate to severe facial erythema. Study participants received treatment with one of four energy-based devices: pulsed‐dye laser Vbeam Perfecta (PDL-Vbeam), pulsed‐dye laser Cynergy (PDL-Cynergy), intense pulsed-light therapy (IPL), or potassium titanyl phosphate laser (KTP laser), in combination with adjunctive oxymetazoline hydrochloride cream (1%).

On days 3-27 and 31-56, oxymetazoline, an alpha_1A adrenoceptor agonist was applied once daily, while energy-based therapy was provided on day 1 and day 29.

The primary safety endpoints were the incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events; the exploratory efficacy endpoint was the change in clinician erythema assessment (CEA) score from start of therapy measured over a 6-hour period post treatment.

Among 43 evaluable patients (who completed the study), CEA score was improved in 39 (90.7%) patients 6 hours post treatment on day 56 and in 30 (68.2%) patients pretreatment.

On day 31, of the 43 evaluable patients, “one‐grade or greater improvement was observed” in 26 (60.5%) patients before application of oxymetazoline, and in 38 (88.4%) of patients 6 hours post treatment, they wrote.

Overall, patient satisfaction increased over the course of the study, with 28 (65.1%) of patients reporting they were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment on day 56.

Among 46 patients who received at least one treatment, 5 (10.9%) patients had one or more TEAEs (KTP laser, n = 1; PDL-Vbeam, n = 4), and 4 patients had one or more treatment‐related TEAEs (PDL-Vbeam, n = 4); All TEAEs were considered mild or moderate. “Three (6.5%) patients experienced TEAEs related to oxymetazoline; all led to study discontinuation,” the researchers reported.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of multiple energy-based devices, delivered by different providers, which could have caused inconsistency in the results.

“Prospective clinical studies assessing the long‐term safety and efficacy of combined treatment with oxymetazoline and energy‐based therapies are needed,” they concluded.

The manuscript was funded by oxymetazoline manufacturer Aclaris Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed being an investigator, consultant, and/or laser manufacturers. One author was an employee of Aclaris at the time of the study.

SOURCE: Tanghetti EA et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23253.

Energy-based therapy with adjunctive oxymetazoline was safe and improved facial erythema for patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea, according to results from a phase 4 study.

“The current study was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oxymetazoline when used as an adjunctive treatment with energy‐based therapy for patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea,” wrote Emil A. Tanghetti, MD, of the Center for Dermatology and Laser Surgery in Sacramento, and coauthors. The findings were published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.

The open-label, interventional study included 46 patients with rosacea, with moderate to severe facial erythema. Study participants received treatment with one of four energy-based devices: pulsed‐dye laser Vbeam Perfecta (PDL-Vbeam), pulsed‐dye laser Cynergy (PDL-Cynergy), intense pulsed-light therapy (IPL), or potassium titanyl phosphate laser (KTP laser), in combination with adjunctive oxymetazoline hydrochloride cream (1%).

On days 3-27 and 31-56, oxymetazoline, an alpha_1A adrenoceptor agonist was applied once daily, while energy-based therapy was provided on day 1 and day 29.

The primary safety endpoints were the incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events; the exploratory efficacy endpoint was the change in clinician erythema assessment (CEA) score from start of therapy measured over a 6-hour period post treatment.

Among 43 evaluable patients (who completed the study), CEA score was improved in 39 (90.7%) patients 6 hours post treatment on day 56 and in 30 (68.2%) patients pretreatment.

On day 31, of the 43 evaluable patients, “one‐grade or greater improvement was observed” in 26 (60.5%) patients before application of oxymetazoline, and in 38 (88.4%) of patients 6 hours post treatment, they wrote.

Overall, patient satisfaction increased over the course of the study, with 28 (65.1%) of patients reporting they were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment on day 56.

Among 46 patients who received at least one treatment, 5 (10.9%) patients had one or more TEAEs (KTP laser, n = 1; PDL-Vbeam, n = 4), and 4 patients had one or more treatment‐related TEAEs (PDL-Vbeam, n = 4); All TEAEs were considered mild or moderate. “Three (6.5%) patients experienced TEAEs related to oxymetazoline; all led to study discontinuation,” the researchers reported.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of multiple energy-based devices, delivered by different providers, which could have caused inconsistency in the results.

“Prospective clinical studies assessing the long‐term safety and efficacy of combined treatment with oxymetazoline and energy‐based therapies are needed,” they concluded.

The manuscript was funded by oxymetazoline manufacturer Aclaris Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed being an investigator, consultant, and/or laser manufacturers. One author was an employee of Aclaris at the time of the study.

SOURCE: Tanghetti EA et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23253.

Energy-based therapy with adjunctive oxymetazoline was safe and improved facial erythema for patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea, according to results from a phase 4 study.

“The current study was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of oxymetazoline when used as an adjunctive treatment with energy‐based therapy for patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea,” wrote Emil A. Tanghetti, MD, of the Center for Dermatology and Laser Surgery in Sacramento, and coauthors. The findings were published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.

The open-label, interventional study included 46 patients with rosacea, with moderate to severe facial erythema. Study participants received treatment with one of four energy-based devices: pulsed‐dye laser Vbeam Perfecta (PDL-Vbeam), pulsed‐dye laser Cynergy (PDL-Cynergy), intense pulsed-light therapy (IPL), or potassium titanyl phosphate laser (KTP laser), in combination with adjunctive oxymetazoline hydrochloride cream (1%).

On days 3-27 and 31-56, oxymetazoline, an alpha_1A adrenoceptor agonist was applied once daily, while energy-based therapy was provided on day 1 and day 29.

The primary safety endpoints were the incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious adverse events; the exploratory efficacy endpoint was the change in clinician erythema assessment (CEA) score from start of therapy measured over a 6-hour period post treatment.

Among 43 evaluable patients (who completed the study), CEA score was improved in 39 (90.7%) patients 6 hours post treatment on day 56 and in 30 (68.2%) patients pretreatment.

On day 31, of the 43 evaluable patients, “one‐grade or greater improvement was observed” in 26 (60.5%) patients before application of oxymetazoline, and in 38 (88.4%) of patients 6 hours post treatment, they wrote.

Overall, patient satisfaction increased over the course of the study, with 28 (65.1%) of patients reporting they were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment on day 56.

Among 46 patients who received at least one treatment, 5 (10.9%) patients had one or more TEAEs (KTP laser, n = 1; PDL-Vbeam, n = 4), and 4 patients had one or more treatment‐related TEAEs (PDL-Vbeam, n = 4); All TEAEs were considered mild or moderate. “Three (6.5%) patients experienced TEAEs related to oxymetazoline; all led to study discontinuation,” the researchers reported.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of multiple energy-based devices, delivered by different providers, which could have caused inconsistency in the results.

“Prospective clinical studies assessing the long‐term safety and efficacy of combined treatment with oxymetazoline and energy‐based therapies are needed,” they concluded.

The manuscript was funded by oxymetazoline manufacturer Aclaris Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed being an investigator, consultant, and/or laser manufacturers. One author was an employee of Aclaris at the time of the study.

SOURCE: Tanghetti EA et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23253.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%).

Use is limited to patients with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations.

The FDA also approved a companion diagnostic device, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies), for identifying patients appropriate for the combination treatment.

The approval is based on results from the CHECKMATE-227 study, a randomized, open-label, multipart trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC and no prior anticancer therapy.

The findings were first presented at the 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2019) annual meeting, and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In part 1a of the trial, 793 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 396) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy (n = 397). Median overall survival was 17.1 months versus 14.9 (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67, 0.94; P = .006). Confirmed overall response rate was 36% and 30%.

Median response duration was 23.2 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group versus 6.2 months in the platinum-doublet-chemotherapy group.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients receiving the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 were fatigue, rash, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea/colitis, dyspnea, cough, pruritus, nausea, and hepatitis.

At ESMO 2019, study investigator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, called the results “practice changing.”

But Marina C. Garassino, MD, head of thoracic medical oncology at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy, had a different opinion. She said that although the results “show we have a new treatment option for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC ... we don’t yet know if the findings are practice changing.”

Garassino added that more work is needed to determine which patients are optimally treated with two immunotherapies, with a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, or just with a single agent.

The recommended doses for metastatic NSCLC are nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

More information about the approval is available on the FDA website.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%).

Use is limited to patients with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations.

The FDA also approved a companion diagnostic device, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies), for identifying patients appropriate for the combination treatment.

The approval is based on results from the CHECKMATE-227 study, a randomized, open-label, multipart trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC and no prior anticancer therapy.

The findings were first presented at the 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2019) annual meeting, and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In part 1a of the trial, 793 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 396) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy (n = 397). Median overall survival was 17.1 months versus 14.9 (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67, 0.94; P = .006). Confirmed overall response rate was 36% and 30%.

Median response duration was 23.2 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group versus 6.2 months in the platinum-doublet-chemotherapy group.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients receiving the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 were fatigue, rash, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea/colitis, dyspnea, cough, pruritus, nausea, and hepatitis.

At ESMO 2019, study investigator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, called the results “practice changing.”

But Marina C. Garassino, MD, head of thoracic medical oncology at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy, had a different opinion. She said that although the results “show we have a new treatment option for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC ... we don’t yet know if the findings are practice changing.”

Garassino added that more work is needed to determine which patients are optimally treated with two immunotherapies, with a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, or just with a single agent.

The recommended doses for metastatic NSCLC are nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

More information about the approval is available on the FDA website.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%).

Use is limited to patients with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations.

The FDA also approved a companion diagnostic device, the PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies), for identifying patients appropriate for the combination treatment.

The approval is based on results from the CHECKMATE-227 study, a randomized, open-label, multipart trial in patients with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC and no prior anticancer therapy.

The findings were first presented at the 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO 2019) annual meeting, and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In part 1a of the trial, 793 patients were randomly assigned to receive either the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 396) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy (n = 397). Median overall survival was 17.1 months versus 14.9 (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67, 0.94; P = .006). Confirmed overall response rate was 36% and 30%.

Median response duration was 23.2 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group versus 6.2 months in the platinum-doublet-chemotherapy group.

The most common adverse reactions in 20% or more of patients receiving the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 were fatigue, rash, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea/colitis, dyspnea, cough, pruritus, nausea, and hepatitis.

At ESMO 2019, study investigator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, called the results “practice changing.”

But Marina C. Garassino, MD, head of thoracic medical oncology at the National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy, had a different opinion. She said that although the results “show we have a new treatment option for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC ... we don’t yet know if the findings are practice changing.”

Garassino added that more work is needed to determine which patients are optimally treated with two immunotherapies, with a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, or just with a single agent.

The recommended doses for metastatic NSCLC are nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, or up to 2 years in patients without disease progression.

More information about the approval is available on the FDA website.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ANSWER

The correct answer is cutaneous sinus tract of odontogenic origin (choice “d”).

DISCUSSION

These uncommon lesions are known by several names, including odontogenic fistula. Invariably, they are misdiagnosed as an “infection” and treated with antibiotics, which only calm these lesions until they inevitably return to their pretreatment appearance. Though bacteria (mostly Peptostreptococcus—the anaerobe predominating in the mouth) are involved, this is not an infection as it usually manifests.

The underlying process of this condition is caused by a periapical abscess: as it grows in size and pressure, it enters into the mouth or fistulizes out through the buccal tissue, continuing until it penetrates the skin and begins to release its pustular contents. Eighty percent manifest on the submental or chin area, while 20% tunnel inwards toward the oral cavity.

They initially manifest as papules with a 2-to-3-mm surface that soon drain pus from a central sinus. As this continues, the epithelium responds to the chronic inflammation by forming a mass of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. Biopsy would reveal that the mass also shows signs of chronic inflammation. Ordinary bacterial culture often shows nothing because the predominant organism is an anaerobe. At most, one might see a polymicrobial result.

TREATMENT

For affected patients, a dentist can be considered for radiography of the area to confirm the location of the periapical abscess. Then the tooth is usually extracted, resulting in a cure. No further treatment of the sinus tract is necessary because it will essentially disappear over time. The tract does not require excision because it is lined with reactive granulation tissue and not epithelium (as is the case for many other fistular processes).

If the dental exam and radiograph fail to show the expected result, the other diagnoses—thyroglossal duct cyst, branchial cleft cyst, squamous cell carcinoma—would have to be considered.

ANSWER

The correct answer is cutaneous sinus tract of odontogenic origin (choice “d”).

DISCUSSION

These uncommon lesions are known by several names, including odontogenic fistula. Invariably, they are misdiagnosed as an “infection” and treated with antibiotics, which only calm these lesions until they inevitably return to their pretreatment appearance. Though bacteria (mostly Peptostreptococcus—the anaerobe predominating in the mouth) are involved, this is not an infection as it usually manifests.

The underlying process of this condition is caused by a periapical abscess: as it grows in size and pressure, it enters into the mouth or fistulizes out through the buccal tissue, continuing until it penetrates the skin and begins to release its pustular contents. Eighty percent manifest on the submental or chin area, while 20% tunnel inwards toward the oral cavity.

They initially manifest as papules with a 2-to-3-mm surface that soon drain pus from a central sinus. As this continues, the epithelium responds to the chronic inflammation by forming a mass of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. Biopsy would reveal that the mass also shows signs of chronic inflammation. Ordinary bacterial culture often shows nothing because the predominant organism is an anaerobe. At most, one might see a polymicrobial result.

TREATMENT

For affected patients, a dentist can be considered for radiography of the area to confirm the location of the periapical abscess. Then the tooth is usually extracted, resulting in a cure. No further treatment of the sinus tract is necessary because it will essentially disappear over time. The tract does not require excision because it is lined with reactive granulation tissue and not epithelium (as is the case for many other fistular processes).

If the dental exam and radiograph fail to show the expected result, the other diagnoses—thyroglossal duct cyst, branchial cleft cyst, squamous cell carcinoma—would have to be considered.

ANSWER

The correct answer is cutaneous sinus tract of odontogenic origin (choice “d”).

DISCUSSION

These uncommon lesions are known by several names, including odontogenic fistula. Invariably, they are misdiagnosed as an “infection” and treated with antibiotics, which only calm these lesions until they inevitably return to their pretreatment appearance. Though bacteria (mostly Peptostreptococcus—the anaerobe predominating in the mouth) are involved, this is not an infection as it usually manifests.

The underlying process of this condition is caused by a periapical abscess: as it grows in size and pressure, it enters into the mouth or fistulizes out through the buccal tissue, continuing until it penetrates the skin and begins to release its pustular contents. Eighty percent manifest on the submental or chin area, while 20% tunnel inwards toward the oral cavity.

They initially manifest as papules with a 2-to-3-mm surface that soon drain pus from a central sinus. As this continues, the epithelium responds to the chronic inflammation by forming a mass of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. Biopsy would reveal that the mass also shows signs of chronic inflammation. Ordinary bacterial culture often shows nothing because the predominant organism is an anaerobe. At most, one might see a polymicrobial result.

TREATMENT

For affected patients, a dentist can be considered for radiography of the area to confirm the location of the periapical abscess. Then the tooth is usually extracted, resulting in a cure. No further treatment of the sinus tract is necessary because it will essentially disappear over time. The tract does not require excision because it is lined with reactive granulation tissue and not epithelium (as is the case for many other fistular processes).

If the dental exam and radiograph fail to show the expected result, the other diagnoses—thyroglossal duct cyst, branchial cleft cyst, squamous cell carcinoma—would have to be considered.

A large-scale screen of urine proteins has identified molecules that may help to determine whether a patient has active lupus nephritis, according to a cross-sectional study published in Nature Communications. The proteins that best differentiate active lupus nephritis from inactive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) vary across ethnicities, the researchers wrote.

“A longitudinal study is warranted to investigate how these molecules relate to disease pathology and progression over time,” said senior study author Chandra Mohan, MD, PhD, of the department of biomedical engineering at the University of Houston, and colleagues. In addition, researchers should investigate the roles of protein biomarkers ALCAM, PF-4, properdin, VCAM-1, and sE-selectin in mediating lupus nephritis.
 

Limitations of renal biopsy

About 60% of patients with SLE will develop lupus nephritis, and 10%-15% of patients who develop lupus nephritis progress to end-stage renal disease. Although renal biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of renal involvement in SLE, biopsies are invasive, not serially repeatable, and may not represent the entire kidney, Dr. Mohan and colleagues wrote.

To identify potential urinary biomarkers of lupus nephritis using an unbiased, proteomic approach, the investigators screened urine samples from 23 participants – 7 with active lupus nephritis, 8 with inactive SLE, and 8 healthy controls. They used an aptamer-based screen to investigate more than 1,100 proteins. The researchers then validated biomarker candidates using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Independent cross-sectional cohorts included 127 patients with inactive SLE, 107 patients with active lupus nephritis, 67 patients with active nonrenal lupus, and 74 healthy controls. The cohorts included patients who were African American, Caucasian, and Asian. The researchers excluded patients with renal failure and pediatric patients.

Of the 12 urine proteins studied, 10 outperformed traditional laboratory measures, such as C3/C4 and anti–double stranded DNA, in discriminating active lupus nephritis from inactive SLE, wrote Dr. Mohan and colleagues. A Lasso regression analysis found that the best predictive model included 8 of the 12 urine proteins as well as race. The model discriminated active lupus nephritis from inactive SLE with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.98.

Among African Americans, urine proteins that best distinguished active lupus nephritis from inactive disease included PF-4 (AUC, 0.88), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.87), properdin (AUC, 0.85), and ALCAM (AUC, 0.84). Among Caucasians, they included sE-selectin (AUC, 0.87), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.84), BFL-1 (AUC, 0.81), and hemopexin (AUC, 0.80). Among Asians, they included ALCAM (AUC, 0.93), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.92), TFPI (AUC, 0.88), and PF-4 (AUC, 0.83).

The study is “unique in highlighting the importance of tailoring the biomarkers to patient ethnicity,” the researchers wrote.

Basing subgroups on race rather than phenotypic profiles

“This is an important study because it confirms the ability to predict active lupus nephritis from urine samples and utilized advanced technologies to find key markers for that,” said Joan T. Merrill, MD, of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. “It is unfortunate that investigators with access to such advanced technology are still using an outdated and extremely questionable method for distinguishing subgroups of patients, that of race.”

Grouping patients by phenotypic profiles that reflect current disease states “would be a more accurate method for finding optimal urinary markers for active nephritis,” and is “likely to prove more accurate for individuals in all races,” Dr. Merrill said. Certain racial subgroups may be more likely to have particular disease phenotypes, “which are usually identified based on gene pathway coexpression patterns.” Still, “people who self-identify as a given race are not genetically identical,” Dr. Merrill added. “In fact, this is a very blunt instrument, compared to phenotypic profiling now available for lupus patients.”

SLE and lupus nephritis are “heavily influenced by genetics,” and African Americans are three times more likely than Caucasians to develop SLE and are more like to develop end-stage renal disease, Dr. Mohan and colleagues wrote. Nevertheless, “influence from environmental triggers or socioeconomic factors cannot be ruled out,” they added. “Although patient demographics are widely known to affect SLE disease manifestations and outcomes, there are virtually no studies investigating this phenomenon in the context of disease biomarkers; most SLE biomarkers studies focus on one demographic group or all ethnic groups combined, which yield results that may not be equally predictive in all demographic groups of SLE patients.”

Dr. Mohan is collaborating with a biotechnology company to study drugs that may block ALCAM, according to a University of Houston news release. ALCAM is involved in immune and inflammatory responses, the researchers noted. “When all SLE patients were combined, urine ALCAM levels had the strongest bearing on disease activity status, in an unsupervised Bayesian network analysis,” they wrote. “Urine ALCAM also emerged as one of the few proteins that distinguished active [lupus nephritis] from active nonrenal lupus.”

National Institutes of Health grants supported the research. The investigators had no competing interests.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stanley S et al. Nat Commun. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15986-3.

A large-scale screen of urine proteins has identified molecules that may help to determine whether a patient has active lupus nephritis, according to a cross-sectional study published in Nature Communications. The proteins that best differentiate active lupus nephritis from inactive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) vary across ethnicities, the researchers wrote.

“A longitudinal study is warranted to investigate how these molecules relate to disease pathology and progression over time,” said senior study author Chandra Mohan, MD, PhD, of the department of biomedical engineering at the University of Houston, and colleagues. In addition, researchers should investigate the roles of protein biomarkers ALCAM, PF-4, properdin, VCAM-1, and sE-selectin in mediating lupus nephritis.
 

Limitations of renal biopsy

About 60% of patients with SLE will develop lupus nephritis, and 10%-15% of patients who develop lupus nephritis progress to end-stage renal disease. Although renal biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of renal involvement in SLE, biopsies are invasive, not serially repeatable, and may not represent the entire kidney, Dr. Mohan and colleagues wrote.

To identify potential urinary biomarkers of lupus nephritis using an unbiased, proteomic approach, the investigators screened urine samples from 23 participants – 7 with active lupus nephritis, 8 with inactive SLE, and 8 healthy controls. They used an aptamer-based screen to investigate more than 1,100 proteins. The researchers then validated biomarker candidates using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Independent cross-sectional cohorts included 127 patients with inactive SLE, 107 patients with active lupus nephritis, 67 patients with active nonrenal lupus, and 74 healthy controls. The cohorts included patients who were African American, Caucasian, and Asian. The researchers excluded patients with renal failure and pediatric patients.

Of the 12 urine proteins studied, 10 outperformed traditional laboratory measures, such as C3/C4 and anti–double stranded DNA, in discriminating active lupus nephritis from inactive SLE, wrote Dr. Mohan and colleagues. A Lasso regression analysis found that the best predictive model included 8 of the 12 urine proteins as well as race. The model discriminated active lupus nephritis from inactive SLE with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.98.

Among African Americans, urine proteins that best distinguished active lupus nephritis from inactive disease included PF-4 (AUC, 0.88), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.87), properdin (AUC, 0.85), and ALCAM (AUC, 0.84). Among Caucasians, they included sE-selectin (AUC, 0.87), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.84), BFL-1 (AUC, 0.81), and hemopexin (AUC, 0.80). Among Asians, they included ALCAM (AUC, 0.93), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.92), TFPI (AUC, 0.88), and PF-4 (AUC, 0.83).

The study is “unique in highlighting the importance of tailoring the biomarkers to patient ethnicity,” the researchers wrote.

Basing subgroups on race rather than phenotypic profiles

“This is an important study because it confirms the ability to predict active lupus nephritis from urine samples and utilized advanced technologies to find key markers for that,” said Joan T. Merrill, MD, of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. “It is unfortunate that investigators with access to such advanced technology are still using an outdated and extremely questionable method for distinguishing subgroups of patients, that of race.”

Grouping patients by phenotypic profiles that reflect current disease states “would be a more accurate method for finding optimal urinary markers for active nephritis,” and is “likely to prove more accurate for individuals in all races,” Dr. Merrill said. Certain racial subgroups may be more likely to have particular disease phenotypes, “which are usually identified based on gene pathway coexpression patterns.” Still, “people who self-identify as a given race are not genetically identical,” Dr. Merrill added. “In fact, this is a very blunt instrument, compared to phenotypic profiling now available for lupus patients.”

SLE and lupus nephritis are “heavily influenced by genetics,” and African Americans are three times more likely than Caucasians to develop SLE and are more like to develop end-stage renal disease, Dr. Mohan and colleagues wrote. Nevertheless, “influence from environmental triggers or socioeconomic factors cannot be ruled out,” they added. “Although patient demographics are widely known to affect SLE disease manifestations and outcomes, there are virtually no studies investigating this phenomenon in the context of disease biomarkers; most SLE biomarkers studies focus on one demographic group or all ethnic groups combined, which yield results that may not be equally predictive in all demographic groups of SLE patients.”

Dr. Mohan is collaborating with a biotechnology company to study drugs that may block ALCAM, according to a University of Houston news release. ALCAM is involved in immune and inflammatory responses, the researchers noted. “When all SLE patients were combined, urine ALCAM levels had the strongest bearing on disease activity status, in an unsupervised Bayesian network analysis,” they wrote. “Urine ALCAM also emerged as one of the few proteins that distinguished active [lupus nephritis] from active nonrenal lupus.”

National Institutes of Health grants supported the research. The investigators had no competing interests.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stanley S et al. Nat Commun. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15986-3.

A large-scale screen of urine proteins has identified molecules that may help to determine whether a patient has active lupus nephritis, according to a cross-sectional study published in Nature Communications. The proteins that best differentiate active lupus nephritis from inactive systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) vary across ethnicities, the researchers wrote.

“A longitudinal study is warranted to investigate how these molecules relate to disease pathology and progression over time,” said senior study author Chandra Mohan, MD, PhD, of the department of biomedical engineering at the University of Houston, and colleagues. In addition, researchers should investigate the roles of protein biomarkers ALCAM, PF-4, properdin, VCAM-1, and sE-selectin in mediating lupus nephritis.
 

Limitations of renal biopsy

About 60% of patients with SLE will develop lupus nephritis, and 10%-15% of patients who develop lupus nephritis progress to end-stage renal disease. Although renal biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of renal involvement in SLE, biopsies are invasive, not serially repeatable, and may not represent the entire kidney, Dr. Mohan and colleagues wrote.

To identify potential urinary biomarkers of lupus nephritis using an unbiased, proteomic approach, the investigators screened urine samples from 23 participants – 7 with active lupus nephritis, 8 with inactive SLE, and 8 healthy controls. They used an aptamer-based screen to investigate more than 1,100 proteins. The researchers then validated biomarker candidates using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Independent cross-sectional cohorts included 127 patients with inactive SLE, 107 patients with active lupus nephritis, 67 patients with active nonrenal lupus, and 74 healthy controls. The cohorts included patients who were African American, Caucasian, and Asian. The researchers excluded patients with renal failure and pediatric patients.

Of the 12 urine proteins studied, 10 outperformed traditional laboratory measures, such as C3/C4 and anti–double stranded DNA, in discriminating active lupus nephritis from inactive SLE, wrote Dr. Mohan and colleagues. A Lasso regression analysis found that the best predictive model included 8 of the 12 urine proteins as well as race. The model discriminated active lupus nephritis from inactive SLE with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.98.

Among African Americans, urine proteins that best distinguished active lupus nephritis from inactive disease included PF-4 (AUC, 0.88), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.87), properdin (AUC, 0.85), and ALCAM (AUC, 0.84). Among Caucasians, they included sE-selectin (AUC, 0.87), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.84), BFL-1 (AUC, 0.81), and hemopexin (AUC, 0.80). Among Asians, they included ALCAM (AUC, 0.93), VCAM-1 (AUC, 0.92), TFPI (AUC, 0.88), and PF-4 (AUC, 0.83).

The study is “unique in highlighting the importance of tailoring the biomarkers to patient ethnicity,” the researchers wrote.

Basing subgroups on race rather than phenotypic profiles

“This is an important study because it confirms the ability to predict active lupus nephritis from urine samples and utilized advanced technologies to find key markers for that,” said Joan T. Merrill, MD, of the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. “It is unfortunate that investigators with access to such advanced technology are still using an outdated and extremely questionable method for distinguishing subgroups of patients, that of race.”

Grouping patients by phenotypic profiles that reflect current disease states “would be a more accurate method for finding optimal urinary markers for active nephritis,” and is “likely to prove more accurate for individuals in all races,” Dr. Merrill said. Certain racial subgroups may be more likely to have particular disease phenotypes, “which are usually identified based on gene pathway coexpression patterns.” Still, “people who self-identify as a given race are not genetically identical,” Dr. Merrill added. “In fact, this is a very blunt instrument, compared to phenotypic profiling now available for lupus patients.”

SLE and lupus nephritis are “heavily influenced by genetics,” and African Americans are three times more likely than Caucasians to develop SLE and are more like to develop end-stage renal disease, Dr. Mohan and colleagues wrote. Nevertheless, “influence from environmental triggers or socioeconomic factors cannot be ruled out,” they added. “Although patient demographics are widely known to affect SLE disease manifestations and outcomes, there are virtually no studies investigating this phenomenon in the context of disease biomarkers; most SLE biomarkers studies focus on one demographic group or all ethnic groups combined, which yield results that may not be equally predictive in all demographic groups of SLE patients.”

Dr. Mohan is collaborating with a biotechnology company to study drugs that may block ALCAM, according to a University of Houston news release. ALCAM is involved in immune and inflammatory responses, the researchers noted. “When all SLE patients were combined, urine ALCAM levels had the strongest bearing on disease activity status, in an unsupervised Bayesian network analysis,” they wrote. “Urine ALCAM also emerged as one of the few proteins that distinguished active [lupus nephritis] from active nonrenal lupus.”

National Institutes of Health grants supported the research. The investigators had no competing interests.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stanley S et al. Nat Commun. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15986-3.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Protective measures recommended for cosmetic procedures have recently been published by Dover et al. in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. The manuscript, titled “A path to resume aesthetic care Project AesCert Guidance Supplement – practical considerations for aesthetic medicine professionals supporting clinic preparedness in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,” provides thorough, detailed recommendations on all aspects of protection and preparedness for aesthetic clinical practices.

While health care offices, professional organizations, and governmental agencies come up with the optimal plans and protocols to keep patients, staff, and communities safe from COVID-19, specific guidelines for laser surgeries have been difficult to discern in this uncharted territory. During the last pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by an H1N1 virus, laser procedures didn’t exist. Discussion among dermatologists and laser surgeons, including the aforementioned publication, have led to the following initial office recommendations (subject to change).

Office preparation and safety including:

• Prescreening patients for symptoms.
• Social distancing in the office, including waiting room areas (or eliminating waiting areas and bringing patients into exam rooms upon arrival).
• Decreasing patient load and increasing length of appointment times.
• Having no additional visitors during patient appointments, unless necessary (minor, caregiver).
• Patients wearing masks to appointments and hand washing/sanitizing upon arrival/departure.
• Providers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.
• Instituting office disinfectant checklists.

For nonablative laser surgery specifically, especially for therapy of the face and neck, recommendations include the following:

• Lasers and office areas are thoroughly sanitized between each procedure.
• Providers wear appropriate PPE, including N95 masks if possible, wraparound safety glasses, gloves, as well as strong consideration of face shields).
• The duration and number of procedures should be limited, as should intraprocedure conversations and close face-to-face proximity with patient’s airways.
• Lasers with increased plume, including laser tattoo removal and laser hair removal, are the procedures with the most concern with regards to viral particle or infection transmission.

PPE is recommended (including masks – N95 if available – gloves, and face shield), as well as evacuator suction systems of the two-stage filtration type, and/or negative room pressure if available. For air-filtration evacuator suction systems, the device vacuum must be held within 2 inches of the treatment area for the best efficacy. Some have suggested performing laser tattoo removal through a hydrogel patch to help eliminate plume, which may also increase the cost of the procedure and may depend on the availability of the patches themselves. Nothing has been published on the use of the hydrogel patch in laser hair removal. Shaving or trimming of hairs prior to the procedure is critical.

While pulse dye and intense pulsed light (IPL) lasers have generally been deemed safer to use during the COVID-19 pandemic – with appropriate protective gear and general office precautions – I would recommend being mindful of potential plume created when using these lasers in hair-bearing areas. IPL is generally avoided in these regions, unless specific filters are used for hair removal treatment. But if use an IPL in a hair-bearing region, shaving or trimming of the hairs with the above precautions should be done first to reduce plume. As with all face-to-face procedures, the above PPE, contact, and intraprocedure conversation precautions should be taken.

Nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are areas in which more questions lie. Some providers are comfortable performing nonablative fractional lasers with protective gear and air filtration systems, while others are recommending delaying these procedures until more information is available. The question essentially involves whether infection risk is higher with these procedures because of plume and if depth of penetration of the laser can release viral particles.

In addition to the other precautions above, with the high transmissibility of COVID-19, I would recommend considering precleansing the treatment area with soap and water or a sterile prep that won’t irritate the skin, which has activity against coronaviruses. A study by Kampf et al. demonstrated that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (human skin surface unknown) but can be effectively inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents that may be more tolerable on the skin surface, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate were less effective. Washing the face with soap and water may be the most tolerated and easiest cleansing method. Face-to-face respiratory transmission should be mitigated by the aforementioned methods.

Ablative laser surgery

Most laser surgeons agree that ablative laser surgery procedures should likely be delayed until the virus has waned more, because of the increased invasiveness of and recovery of wound healing from the procedure. There is increased evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infecting endothelial cells, raising concern about transmission via blood. A study of the cardiovascular manifestations seen in COVID-19 infection, published in The Lancet, showed the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Ablative laser surgery (fractional and fully ablative) is associated with blood or serous fluid on the skin surface immediately after the procedure and for up to 5-7 days post procedure, particularly with Er:Yag than with the CO₂ laser. Antibacterial and antiviral prophylaxis often is used with these procedures. While the aforementioned protocols for other nonablative lasers may help with ablative laser treatment, there is currently no known effective and available antiviral prophylactic medication against SARS-CoV-2, if needed.

PPE

HRAUN/E+

With asymptomatic spread and the lack of adequate testing for COVID-19, as practices reopen, all practitioners will be on the front lines and should treat their practice and protect their patients, staff and themselves as such.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They have no relevant disclosures.

References:

Dover JS et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2020 May 5. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0239.

Kampf G et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-51.

Varga Z et al. Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1417-8.

Protective measures recommended for cosmetic procedures have recently been published by Dover et al. in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. The manuscript, titled “A path to resume aesthetic care Project AesCert Guidance Supplement – practical considerations for aesthetic medicine professionals supporting clinic preparedness in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,” provides thorough, detailed recommendations on all aspects of protection and preparedness for aesthetic clinical practices.

While health care offices, professional organizations, and governmental agencies come up with the optimal plans and protocols to keep patients, staff, and communities safe from COVID-19, specific guidelines for laser surgeries have been difficult to discern in this uncharted territory. During the last pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by an H1N1 virus, laser procedures didn’t exist. Discussion among dermatologists and laser surgeons, including the aforementioned publication, have led to the following initial office recommendations (subject to change).

Office preparation and safety including:

• Prescreening patients for symptoms.
• Social distancing in the office, including waiting room areas (or eliminating waiting areas and bringing patients into exam rooms upon arrival).
• Decreasing patient load and increasing length of appointment times.
• Having no additional visitors during patient appointments, unless necessary (minor, caregiver).
• Patients wearing masks to appointments and hand washing/sanitizing upon arrival/departure.
• Providers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.
• Instituting office disinfectant checklists.

For nonablative laser surgery specifically, especially for therapy of the face and neck, recommendations include the following:

• Lasers and office areas are thoroughly sanitized between each procedure.
• Providers wear appropriate PPE, including N95 masks if possible, wraparound safety glasses, gloves, as well as strong consideration of face shields).
• The duration and number of procedures should be limited, as should intraprocedure conversations and close face-to-face proximity with patient’s airways.
• Lasers with increased plume, including laser tattoo removal and laser hair removal, are the procedures with the most concern with regards to viral particle or infection transmission.

PPE is recommended (including masks – N95 if available – gloves, and face shield), as well as evacuator suction systems of the two-stage filtration type, and/or negative room pressure if available. For air-filtration evacuator suction systems, the device vacuum must be held within 2 inches of the treatment area for the best efficacy. Some have suggested performing laser tattoo removal through a hydrogel patch to help eliminate plume, which may also increase the cost of the procedure and may depend on the availability of the patches themselves. Nothing has been published on the use of the hydrogel patch in laser hair removal. Shaving or trimming of hairs prior to the procedure is critical.

While pulse dye and intense pulsed light (IPL) lasers have generally been deemed safer to use during the COVID-19 pandemic – with appropriate protective gear and general office precautions – I would recommend being mindful of potential plume created when using these lasers in hair-bearing areas. IPL is generally avoided in these regions, unless specific filters are used for hair removal treatment. But if use an IPL in a hair-bearing region, shaving or trimming of the hairs with the above precautions should be done first to reduce plume. As with all face-to-face procedures, the above PPE, contact, and intraprocedure conversation precautions should be taken.

Nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are areas in which more questions lie. Some providers are comfortable performing nonablative fractional lasers with protective gear and air filtration systems, while others are recommending delaying these procedures until more information is available. The question essentially involves whether infection risk is higher with these procedures because of plume and if depth of penetration of the laser can release viral particles.

In addition to the other precautions above, with the high transmissibility of COVID-19, I would recommend considering precleansing the treatment area with soap and water or a sterile prep that won’t irritate the skin, which has activity against coronaviruses. A study by Kampf et al. demonstrated that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (human skin surface unknown) but can be effectively inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents that may be more tolerable on the skin surface, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate were less effective. Washing the face with soap and water may be the most tolerated and easiest cleansing method. Face-to-face respiratory transmission should be mitigated by the aforementioned methods.

Ablative laser surgery

Most laser surgeons agree that ablative laser surgery procedures should likely be delayed until the virus has waned more, because of the increased invasiveness of and recovery of wound healing from the procedure. There is increased evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infecting endothelial cells, raising concern about transmission via blood. A study of the cardiovascular manifestations seen in COVID-19 infection, published in The Lancet, showed the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Ablative laser surgery (fractional and fully ablative) is associated with blood or serous fluid on the skin surface immediately after the procedure and for up to 5-7 days post procedure, particularly with Er:Yag than with the CO₂ laser. Antibacterial and antiviral prophylaxis often is used with these procedures. While the aforementioned protocols for other nonablative lasers may help with ablative laser treatment, there is currently no known effective and available antiviral prophylactic medication against SARS-CoV-2, if needed.

PPE

HRAUN/E+

With asymptomatic spread and the lack of adequate testing for COVID-19, as practices reopen, all practitioners will be on the front lines and should treat their practice and protect their patients, staff and themselves as such.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They have no relevant disclosures.

References:

Dover JS et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2020 May 5. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0239.

Kampf G et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-51.

Varga Z et al. Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1417-8.

Protective measures recommended for cosmetic procedures have recently been published by Dover et al. in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. The manuscript, titled “A path to resume aesthetic care Project AesCert Guidance Supplement – practical considerations for aesthetic medicine professionals supporting clinic preparedness in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,” provides thorough, detailed recommendations on all aspects of protection and preparedness for aesthetic clinical practices.

While health care offices, professional organizations, and governmental agencies come up with the optimal plans and protocols to keep patients, staff, and communities safe from COVID-19, specific guidelines for laser surgeries have been difficult to discern in this uncharted territory. During the last pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by an H1N1 virus, laser procedures didn’t exist. Discussion among dermatologists and laser surgeons, including the aforementioned publication, have led to the following initial office recommendations (subject to change).

Office preparation and safety including:

• Prescreening patients for symptoms.
• Social distancing in the office, including waiting room areas (or eliminating waiting areas and bringing patients into exam rooms upon arrival).
• Decreasing patient load and increasing length of appointment times.
• Having no additional visitors during patient appointments, unless necessary (minor, caregiver).
• Patients wearing masks to appointments and hand washing/sanitizing upon arrival/departure.
• Providers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.
• Instituting office disinfectant checklists.

For nonablative laser surgery specifically, especially for therapy of the face and neck, recommendations include the following:

• Lasers and office areas are thoroughly sanitized between each procedure.
• Providers wear appropriate PPE, including N95 masks if possible, wraparound safety glasses, gloves, as well as strong consideration of face shields).
• The duration and number of procedures should be limited, as should intraprocedure conversations and close face-to-face proximity with patient’s airways.
• Lasers with increased plume, including laser tattoo removal and laser hair removal, are the procedures with the most concern with regards to viral particle or infection transmission.

PPE is recommended (including masks – N95 if available – gloves, and face shield), as well as evacuator suction systems of the two-stage filtration type, and/or negative room pressure if available. For air-filtration evacuator suction systems, the device vacuum must be held within 2 inches of the treatment area for the best efficacy. Some have suggested performing laser tattoo removal through a hydrogel patch to help eliminate plume, which may also increase the cost of the procedure and may depend on the availability of the patches themselves. Nothing has been published on the use of the hydrogel patch in laser hair removal. Shaving or trimming of hairs prior to the procedure is critical.

While pulse dye and intense pulsed light (IPL) lasers have generally been deemed safer to use during the COVID-19 pandemic – with appropriate protective gear and general office precautions – I would recommend being mindful of potential plume created when using these lasers in hair-bearing areas. IPL is generally avoided in these regions, unless specific filters are used for hair removal treatment. But if use an IPL in a hair-bearing region, shaving or trimming of the hairs with the above precautions should be done first to reduce plume. As with all face-to-face procedures, the above PPE, contact, and intraprocedure conversation precautions should be taken.

Nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are areas in which more questions lie. Some providers are comfortable performing nonablative fractional lasers with protective gear and air filtration systems, while others are recommending delaying these procedures until more information is available. The question essentially involves whether infection risk is higher with these procedures because of plume and if depth of penetration of the laser can release viral particles.

In addition to the other precautions above, with the high transmissibility of COVID-19, I would recommend considering precleansing the treatment area with soap and water or a sterile prep that won’t irritate the skin, which has activity against coronaviruses. A study by Kampf et al. demonstrated that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (human skin surface unknown) but can be effectively inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents that may be more tolerable on the skin surface, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate were less effective. Washing the face with soap and water may be the most tolerated and easiest cleansing method. Face-to-face respiratory transmission should be mitigated by the aforementioned methods.

Ablative laser surgery

Most laser surgeons agree that ablative laser surgery procedures should likely be delayed until the virus has waned more, because of the increased invasiveness of and recovery of wound healing from the procedure. There is increased evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infecting endothelial cells, raising concern about transmission via blood. A study of the cardiovascular manifestations seen in COVID-19 infection, published in The Lancet, showed the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Ablative laser surgery (fractional and fully ablative) is associated with blood or serous fluid on the skin surface immediately after the procedure and for up to 5-7 days post procedure, particularly with Er:Yag than with the CO₂ laser. Antibacterial and antiviral prophylaxis often is used with these procedures. While the aforementioned protocols for other nonablative lasers may help with ablative laser treatment, there is currently no known effective and available antiviral prophylactic medication against SARS-CoV-2, if needed.

PPE

HRAUN/E+

With asymptomatic spread and the lack of adequate testing for COVID-19, as practices reopen, all practitioners will be on the front lines and should treat their practice and protect their patients, staff and themselves as such.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They have no relevant disclosures.

References:

Dover JS et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2020 May 5. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0239.

Kampf G et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-51.

Varga Z et al. Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1417-8.