Modifications to student quarantine policies in K-12 schools implementing multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies restores in-person education without increasing SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk, January-March 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether modified K-12 student quarantine policies that allow some students to continue in-person education during their quarantine period increase schoolwide SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk following the increase in cases in winter 2020-2021. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 cases and close contacts among students and staff (n = 65,621) in 103 Missouri public schools. Participants were offered free, saliva-based RT-PCR testing. The projected number of school-based transmission events among untested close contacts was extrapolated from the percentage of events detected among tested asymptomatic close contacts and summed with the number of detected events for a projected total. An adjusted Cox regression model compared hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy. RESULTS: From January-March 2021, a projected 23 (1%) school-based transmission events occurred among 1,636 school close contacts. There was no difference in the adjusted hazard rates of school-based SARS-CoV-2 infections between schools with a modified versus standard quarantine policy (hazard ratio = 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.03). DISCUSSION: School-based SARS-CoV-2 transmission was rare in 103 K-12 schools implementing multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies. Modified student quarantine policies were not associated with increased school incidence of COVID-19. Modifications to student quarantine policies may be a useful strategy for K-12 schools to safely reduce disruptions to in-person education during times of increased COVID-19 community incidence.

Pilot Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Secondary Transmission in Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools Implementing Mitigation Strategies - St. Louis County and City of Springfield, Missouri, December 2020.

Many kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) schools offering in-person learning have adopted strategies to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). These measures include mandating use of face masks, physical distancing in classrooms, increasing ventilation with outdoor air, identification of close contacts,* and following CDC isolation and quarantine guidance† (2). A 2-week pilot investigation was conducted to investigate occurrences of SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission in K-12 schools in the city of Springfield, Missouri, and in St. Louis County, Missouri, during December 7-18, 2020. Schools in both locations implemented COVID-19 mitigation strategies; however, Springfield implemented a modified quarantine policy permitting student close contacts aged ≤18 years who had school-associated contact with a person with COVID-19 and met masking requirements during their exposure to continue in-person learning.§ Participating students, teachers, and staff members with COVID-19 (37) from 22 schools and their school-based close contacts (contacts) (156) were interviewed, and contacts were offered SARS-CoV-2 testing. Among 102 school-based contacts who received testing, two (2%) had positive test results indicating probable school-based SARS-CoV-2 secondary transmission. Both contacts were in Springfield and did not meet criteria to participate in the modified quarantine. In Springfield, 42 student contacts were permitted to continue in-person learning under the modified quarantine; among the 30 who were interviewed, 21 were tested, and none received a positive test result. Despite high community transmission, SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools implementing COVID-19 mitigation strategies was lower than that in the community. Until additional data are available, K-12 schools should continue implementing CDC-recommended mitigation measures (2) and follow CDC isolation and quarantine guidance to minimize secondary transmission in schools offering in-person learning.

Exenatide added to insulin therapy: a retrospective review of clinical practice over two years in an academic endocrinology outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide is an antidiabctic agent currently indicated as adjunctive therapy with oral agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Limited published data exist on the off-label use of exenatide in conjunction with insulin in the treatment of T2DM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to examine the effects of exenatide on glycemic control, weight, and insulin dose in patients with T2DM treated with insulin. METHODS: Patients with T2DM receivirg insulin and adjuvant therapy with exenatide at an endocrinology clinic at a university hospital for up to 27 months were eligible for inclusion. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), weight, insulin doses (total, prandial, and basal), concurrent oral antidiabetic medications, and adverse events were ascertained by retrospective review of medical records and were considered the clinical parameters of interest. The last observation in 4 specified time intervals (0-6, 6-12, 12-18, and 18-27 months) for each clinical parameter was used in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3397 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of T2DM who were seen at the clinic during the study period, 268 patients met inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. Of the 268 patients enrolled, 38 discontinued therapy within the first 2 months, 30 were lost to follow-up, and 12 did not have evaluable data. These latter patients without sufficient data (n = 42) were not included in the primary analysis but were included in the adverse events analysis. Overall, data from 188 patients (mean [SD] age, 56 (9) years; 85 [45%] men; body mass index, 40.4 [8.4] kg/m(2); 160 [85%] white) were evaluated (mean duration of treatment, 350 [208] days) and included in all analyses. The mean baseline values for HbA(1c), weight, and total daily insulin dose before exenatide therapy were 8.05% (1.47%), 117.8 (24.7) kg, and 99.9 (90.0) U, respectively. For the 4 time intervals, the mean changes in HbA(1c) were: -0.66% (1.54%) at 0 to 6 months (P < 0.001); -0.55% (1.4%) at 6 to 12 months (P < 0.001); -0.54% (1.83%) at 12 to 18 months (P = 0.019); and -0.54% (1.37%) at 18 to 27 months (P = 0.020). Mean weight significantly declined with increasing treatment duration. Mean changes in weight were: -2.4 (5.1) kg at 0 to 6 months (P < 0.001); -4.3 (7.2) kg at 6 to 12 months (P < 0.001); -6.2 (9.7) kg at 12 to 18 months (P < 0.001); and -5.5 (10.8) kg at 18 to 27 months (P < 0.01). After 18 months, an increase in weight was observed; but the increase remained lower than baseline. The mean insulin total daily dose (TDD) was decreased in all patients at the 0- to 6-month (-18.0 [49.9] U; P < 0.001) and the 6- to 12-month (-14.8 [35.3] U; P < 0.001) intervals. Mean changes in insulin TDD during the 12- to 18-month and 18- to 27-month intervals were not statistically significant. The mean percent change from baseline in the basal insulin dose at 0 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and 18 to 27 months was not statistically significant. For the 4 intervals, the mean percent change from baseline in the prandial insulin dose was -33.5% (56.2%) at 0 to 6 months (P < 0.001); -25.9% (59.7%) at 6 to 12 months (P = 0.002); -29.7% (74.8%) at 12 to 18 months (P = 0.02); and -55.7% (56.8%) at 18 to 27 months (P = 0.005). Of the 226 patients who were treated with exenatide + insulin for any length of time (including within the first 2 months), 59 (26.1%) discontinued exenatide because of adverse events. The adverse events were largely considered mild and included nausea (n = 51 [22.6% of patients]), vomiting (22 [9.7%]), hypoglycemia (9 [4.0%]), heartburn (2 [0.9%]), diarrhea (1 [0.4%]), constipation (1 [0.4%]), malaise (1 [0.4%]), and generalized edema (1 [0.4%]). Two serious adverse events occurred during the study period: acute renal failure not attributed to exenatide (1 [0.4%]); and pancreatitis (1 [0.4%]), both of which required hospitalization 1 month after the start of exenatide therapy. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective review of patients with T2DM treated in an outpatient setting, the addition of exenatide to insulin-based therapy was associated with reductions in mean HbA(1c), weight, and prandial insulin requirements for treatment periods of up to 27 months, and in total insulin requirements for treatment periods of up to 12 months.

Endothelin contributes differently to peripheral vascular tone and blood pressure in human obesity and diabetes.

Endothelin contributes to abnormalities in peripheral blood vessel function of subjects with obesity, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes mellitus, but it is unknown if endothelin contributes specifically to obesity and diabetes-associated changes in blood pressure. We evaluated the effect of systemic endothelin antagonism on peripheral and central hemodynamics and peripheral vascular tone in lean, obese, and type 2 diabetic subjects without overt hypertension by cuff plethysmography. We measured the effects of acute systemic infusions of BQ123 (an antagonist of type A endothelin receptors) in seven lean (body mass index [BMI] 22.7 +/- 3.2 kg/m(2)), seven obese (BMI 35.8 +/- 4.6), and six diabetic subjects (BMI 38.2 +/- 5.0, glycosylated hemoglobin 8.1 +/- 2.2%). BQ123 was infused via antecubital vein sequentially at infusion rates from 0.1 to 1.0 mumol/min. Diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower than baseline across this dose range, but without a clear dose dependence and without differences in the dose response across groups. Obese and diabetic subjects exhibited progressive dilation of peripheral blood vessels (P