The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has wisely chosen to draw our attention to the distressing statistic that by age 13, 70% of children have dropped out of organized sports.

Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.

Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.

How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.

We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.

We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.

Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.

When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.

In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.

I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has wisely chosen to draw our attention to the distressing statistic that by age 13, 70% of children have dropped out of organized sports.

Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.

Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.

How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.

We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.

We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.

Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.

When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.

In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.

I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has wisely chosen to draw our attention to the distressing statistic that by age 13, 70% of children have dropped out of organized sports.

Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.

Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.

How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.

We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.

We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.

Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.

When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.

In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.

I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.

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

Frexalimab (Sanofi), a novel, investigational second-generation inhibitor of the CD40 ligand, significantly reduced disease activity in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study.

At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.

The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.

The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
 

‘Unambiguous Benefit’

Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.

“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.

The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.

Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).

All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.

The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.

At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.

The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.

The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.

Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
 

Phase 3 Trials Underway

The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.

There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.

No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.

Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.

Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
 

‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”

If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”

Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”

“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”

“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.

While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
 

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

Frexalimab (Sanofi), a novel, investigational second-generation inhibitor of the CD40 ligand, significantly reduced disease activity in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study.

At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.

The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.

The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
 

‘Unambiguous Benefit’

Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.

“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.

The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.

Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).

All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.

The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.

At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.

The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.

The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.

Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
 

Phase 3 Trials Underway

The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.

There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.

No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.

Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.

Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
 

‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”

If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”

Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”

“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”

“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.

While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
 

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

Frexalimab (Sanofi), a novel, investigational second-generation inhibitor of the CD40 ligand, significantly reduced disease activity in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study.

At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.

The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.

The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
 

‘Unambiguous Benefit’

Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.

“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.

The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.

Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).

All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.

The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.

At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.

The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.

On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.

The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.

Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
 

Phase 3 Trials Underway

The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.

There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.

No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.

Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.

Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
 

‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”

If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”

Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”

“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”

“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.

While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
 

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — There is growing confidence that remyelinating agents will be a viable option in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the not-too-distant future, according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.

“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”

The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
 

Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites

The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.

The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.

Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.

Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.

“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.

One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.

“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.

The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
 

Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise

Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).

Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.

The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.

“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.

He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.

Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — There is growing confidence that remyelinating agents will be a viable option in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the not-too-distant future, according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.

“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”

The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
 

Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites

The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.

The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.

Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.

Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.

“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.

One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.

“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.

The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
 

Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise

Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).

Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.

The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.

“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.

He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.

Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA — There is growing confidence that remyelinating agents will be a viable option in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the not-too-distant future, according to a summary of the science as well as a late-breaker study presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

In an outline of barriers to remyelinating drugs, including the challenge of delivering well-tolerated therapies into the central nervous system (CNS), Ari J. Green, MD, Chief of the Division of Neuroimmunology and Glial Biology, University of California, San Francisco, spoke specifically about recent progress in drug development.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The important thing is that once we understand the biology, we can turn barriers into opportunities,” he said as he outlined advances over the 6 years since he led the ReBUILD trial.

“We are thinking of remyelination therapies as something off in the horizon,” said Dr. Green, but “the horizon might be closer than we might imagine.”

The double-blind ReBUILD trial provided the first evidence of activity from a remyelinating drug. In this study, 50 patients with chronic demyelinating optic neuropathy and relapsing-remitting MS were randomized to twice daily doses (5-36 mg) of clemastine fumarate for 90 days followed by placebo for 60 days or to placebo for 60 days followed by active drug for 90 days.
 

Remyelinating Effect Documented at Multiple Sites

The improvement on the primary endpoint of visual evoked potentials was interpreted as evidence that the therapy had a positive remyelinating effect, and Dr. Green said that the result has been reproduced by more than a dozen other centers.

The theoretical benefit is from a favorable effect on myelin-producing stem cells, but Dr. Green emphasized that theoretical benefits are not enough for moving the field forward. Negative trials with a theoretical potential to generate remyelination both preceded and followed ReBUILD. Examples include the RENEW study with the anti-lingo monoclonal antibody opicinumab and the CCMR One study with the non-selective retinoid X receptor agonist bexarotene.

Whether there is benefit or failure, “we need to be able to tell what is going on,” Dr. Green said. The reason is that a negative result is not necessarily due to the absence of a meaningful remyelination. Rather, other variables, such as an insufficient number of axons to remyelinate, might explain a lack of effect.

Citing evidence that remyelination and demyelination are often concurrent events, Dr. Green said that there is an urgent need for tools to objectively quantify myelination in order to document that drugs purported to favorably influence myelin repair are doing so. Surrogate markers are potentially unreliable.

“There is an unfortunate tendency in our field to overinterpret atrophy and neurodegeneration and to use those terms too loosely,” Dr. Green said. He said these terms are not interchangeable.

One basis for excitement is the growing support for the theory that oligodendrocyte progenitor cell (OPC) recruitment is critical to the remyelination process. By activating these cells or blocking inhibitors of their activity, experimental evidence suggests new myelin formation can occur. However, a clinically meaningful benefit might still be dependent on multiple additional factors, including the timing of OPC recruitment, Dr. Green explained.

“We might need to provide drugs with a remyelinating effect very early in the process,” he said.

The progress in understanding the interacting factors that define the biology of remyelination is the basis for new enthusiasm about this field, agreed Véronique Miron, PhD, Chair of the Multiple Sclerosis Research, Barlo MS Center, Toronto. Dr. Miron, professor in the Department of Immunology at the University of Toronto, identified the session on remyelination in which Dr. Green spoke as one of the highlights of this year’s ACTRIMS conference.
 

Late-breaker: Two Remyelinating Drugs with Promise

Consistent with this progress, a late-breaker presentation on two drugs that promote oligodendrocyte formation and remyelination in the experimental setting reinforced the growing array of potential therapeutic targets to generate remyelination. The two drugs, CVL-1001 and CVL-2001, act by inhibiting the cholesterol biosynthesis enzymes sterol 14-demethylase (CYP51) and an emopamil binding protein (EBP).

Multiple studies have suggested that CYP51 and EBP are “key therapeutic targets to promote oligodendrocyte formation,” thereby promoting remyelination, reported Brad T. Lang, PhD, vice president of research for Convelo Therapeutics, Cleveland.

The drugs performed as predicted in animal models, where remyelination was documented, and in promoting human oligodendrocyte formation in human brain organoids. The development of these agents has been accompanied by strategy to measure their activity.

“We established a mechanistic biomarker to assess target engagement in the CNS and periphery to guide the next steps in preclinical and clinical development,” Dr. Lang said.

He called these drugs “first-in-class potential therapies in the field of remyelination.” While he acknowledged that no clinical studies have yet been performed, his late-breaker presentation indicated that many of the criteria identified by Dr. Green, including an ability to penetrate the CNS and a plausible, measurable mechanism of action have been fulfilled.

Dr. Green reported financial relationships with Biogen, Mylan, and Novartis. Dr. Miron reported no potential conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

Higher dietary niacin intake is associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but there is no connection between niacin consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a recent study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018) for 4315 adults with MASLD (mean age, 52.5 years; 55%, men; 67%, non-Hispanic White).
• Dietary niacin intake levels were based on two 24-hour dietary recall interviews to report the types and quantities of foods that participants consumed in the 24 hours prior to the interviews.
• Participants were categorized by tertile of dietary niacin intake: Tertile 1 (n = 1440), < 18.4 mg; tertile 2 (n = 1441), 18.5-26.6 mg; and tertile 3 (n = 1434), > 26.7 mg.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 566 deaths occurred, of which 197 were attributed to CVD.
• Compared with participants with a niacin intake of 18.4 mg or lower (the lowest tertile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for participants with a niacin intake of 26.7 mg or higher (the highest tertile) were 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.65 for CVD mortality.
• For the subgroup with diabetes compared with the reference group (the first tertile), the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.82.
• When the subgroup without diabetes was compared with the reference group, the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.58, suggesting a significant interaction between niacin and diabetes with the risk of all-cause mortality.
• An inverse association between dietary niacin intake and all-cause mortality was seen in sensitivity analyses, when excluding a participant who died within 2 years of follow-up.

IN PRACTICE:

“Higher dietary niacin intake was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality,” but not CVD, among individuals with MASLD, and “the dose-response association…needs to be further investigated to determine optimal intake level,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jie Pan, MD, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Physical activity data were missing and could not be adjusted for. The National Death Index used by the researchers has only “modest” ability to accurately classify CVD mortality, and the dietary data were subject to recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

One author was supported by a grant from the National Nature Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher dietary niacin intake is associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but there is no connection between niacin consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a recent study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018) for 4315 adults with MASLD (mean age, 52.5 years; 55%, men; 67%, non-Hispanic White).
• Dietary niacin intake levels were based on two 24-hour dietary recall interviews to report the types and quantities of foods that participants consumed in the 24 hours prior to the interviews.
• Participants were categorized by tertile of dietary niacin intake: Tertile 1 (n = 1440), < 18.4 mg; tertile 2 (n = 1441), 18.5-26.6 mg; and tertile 3 (n = 1434), > 26.7 mg.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 566 deaths occurred, of which 197 were attributed to CVD.
• Compared with participants with a niacin intake of 18.4 mg or lower (the lowest tertile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for participants with a niacin intake of 26.7 mg or higher (the highest tertile) were 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.65 for CVD mortality.
• For the subgroup with diabetes compared with the reference group (the first tertile), the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.82.
• When the subgroup without diabetes was compared with the reference group, the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.58, suggesting a significant interaction between niacin and diabetes with the risk of all-cause mortality.
• An inverse association between dietary niacin intake and all-cause mortality was seen in sensitivity analyses, when excluding a participant who died within 2 years of follow-up.

IN PRACTICE:

“Higher dietary niacin intake was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality,” but not CVD, among individuals with MASLD, and “the dose-response association…needs to be further investigated to determine optimal intake level,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jie Pan, MD, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Physical activity data were missing and could not be adjusted for. The National Death Index used by the researchers has only “modest” ability to accurately classify CVD mortality, and the dietary data were subject to recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

One author was supported by a grant from the National Nature Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher dietary niacin intake is associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), but there is no connection between niacin consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a recent study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018) for 4315 adults with MASLD (mean age, 52.5 years; 55%, men; 67%, non-Hispanic White).
• Dietary niacin intake levels were based on two 24-hour dietary recall interviews to report the types and quantities of foods that participants consumed in the 24 hours prior to the interviews.
• Participants were categorized by tertile of dietary niacin intake: Tertile 1 (n = 1440), < 18.4 mg; tertile 2 (n = 1441), 18.5-26.6 mg; and tertile 3 (n = 1434), > 26.7 mg.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 8.8 years, 566 deaths occurred, of which 197 were attributed to CVD.
• Compared with participants with a niacin intake of 18.4 mg or lower (the lowest tertile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for participants with a niacin intake of 26.7 mg or higher (the highest tertile) were 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.65 for CVD mortality.
• For the subgroup with diabetes compared with the reference group (the first tertile), the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.82.
• When the subgroup without diabetes was compared with the reference group, the HR of all-cause mortality in the third tertile was 0.58, suggesting a significant interaction between niacin and diabetes with the risk of all-cause mortality.
• An inverse association between dietary niacin intake and all-cause mortality was seen in sensitivity analyses, when excluding a participant who died within 2 years of follow-up.

IN PRACTICE:

“Higher dietary niacin intake was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality,” but not CVD, among individuals with MASLD, and “the dose-response association…needs to be further investigated to determine optimal intake level,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Jie Pan, MD, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Physical activity data were missing and could not be adjusted for. The National Death Index used by the researchers has only “modest” ability to accurately classify CVD mortality, and the dietary data were subject to recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

One author was supported by a grant from the National Nature Science Foundation of China. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

TOPLINE:

Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
• Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
• To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
• Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
• From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
• The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
• Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
• Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
• Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
• To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
• Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
• From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
• The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
• Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
• Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
• Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
• To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
• Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
• From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
• The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
• Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
• Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adherence to a higher number of the five key lifestyle behaviors — not smoking, vigorous physical activity, optimal sleep, high-quality diet, and moderate alcohol consumption — is associated with a lower risk for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), new research suggested. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors and IBS incidence using UK Biobank data from 64,268 adults (mean age, 56 years; 55%, women) with no IBS diagnosis at baseline.
• Participants were enrolled during 2006-2010 and followed up to 2022.
• Self-reported healthy lifestyle behaviors were never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of vigorous physical activity, high dietary quality, and moderate alcohol intake.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, 11.8% of participants reported none of the five healthy lifestyle behaviors, 32.1% reported one behavior, 34.1% reported two behaviors, and 21.9% reported three to five behaviors.
• During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 961 (1.5%) incident IBS cases occurred.
• Adjusted hazard ratios associated with IBS incidence and having one, two, and three to five behaviors were 0.79, 0.64, and 0.58, respectively.
• Significant independent inverse associations with IBS incidence were seen for never smoking (0.86), high level of vigorous physical activity (0.83), and optimal sleep (0.73).
• After adjustment for age, sex, employment status, geographic location, gastrointestinal infection, endometriosis, and family history of IBS, adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors remained significantly associated with a lower risk of incident IBS.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence that adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors — never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of physical activity, high dietary quality and moderate alcohol intake — is significantly associated with a lower risk of subsequent IBS incidence. These findings suggest that lifestyle modifications should be considered as key primary prevention strategies for IBS,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Fai Fai Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, was published online in Gut. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational, so it could not show cause and effect. It relied on self-report, which is not always accurate, and the findings may not be applicable to younger age groups. Lifestyle changes made during the follow-up period could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no competing interests. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adherence to a higher number of the five key lifestyle behaviors — not smoking, vigorous physical activity, optimal sleep, high-quality diet, and moderate alcohol consumption — is associated with a lower risk for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), new research suggested. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors and IBS incidence using UK Biobank data from 64,268 adults (mean age, 56 years; 55%, women) with no IBS diagnosis at baseline.
• Participants were enrolled during 2006-2010 and followed up to 2022.
• Self-reported healthy lifestyle behaviors were never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of vigorous physical activity, high dietary quality, and moderate alcohol intake.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, 11.8% of participants reported none of the five healthy lifestyle behaviors, 32.1% reported one behavior, 34.1% reported two behaviors, and 21.9% reported three to five behaviors.
• During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 961 (1.5%) incident IBS cases occurred.
• Adjusted hazard ratios associated with IBS incidence and having one, two, and three to five behaviors were 0.79, 0.64, and 0.58, respectively.
• Significant independent inverse associations with IBS incidence were seen for never smoking (0.86), high level of vigorous physical activity (0.83), and optimal sleep (0.73).
• After adjustment for age, sex, employment status, geographic location, gastrointestinal infection, endometriosis, and family history of IBS, adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors remained significantly associated with a lower risk of incident IBS.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence that adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors — never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of physical activity, high dietary quality and moderate alcohol intake — is significantly associated with a lower risk of subsequent IBS incidence. These findings suggest that lifestyle modifications should be considered as key primary prevention strategies for IBS,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Fai Fai Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, was published online in Gut. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational, so it could not show cause and effect. It relied on self-report, which is not always accurate, and the findings may not be applicable to younger age groups. Lifestyle changes made during the follow-up period could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no competing interests. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adherence to a higher number of the five key lifestyle behaviors — not smoking, vigorous physical activity, optimal sleep, high-quality diet, and moderate alcohol consumption — is associated with a lower risk for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), new research suggested. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors and IBS incidence using UK Biobank data from 64,268 adults (mean age, 56 years; 55%, women) with no IBS diagnosis at baseline.
• Participants were enrolled during 2006-2010 and followed up to 2022.
• Self-reported healthy lifestyle behaviors were never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of vigorous physical activity, high dietary quality, and moderate alcohol intake.

TAKEAWAY:

• At baseline, 11.8% of participants reported none of the five healthy lifestyle behaviors, 32.1% reported one behavior, 34.1% reported two behaviors, and 21.9% reported three to five behaviors.
• During a mean follow-up of 12.6 years, 961 (1.5%) incident IBS cases occurred.
• Adjusted hazard ratios associated with IBS incidence and having one, two, and three to five behaviors were 0.79, 0.64, and 0.58, respectively.
• Significant independent inverse associations with IBS incidence were seen for never smoking (0.86), high level of vigorous physical activity (0.83), and optimal sleep (0.73).
• After adjustment for age, sex, employment status, geographic location, gastrointestinal infection, endometriosis, and family history of IBS, adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors remained significantly associated with a lower risk of incident IBS.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence that adherence to a higher number of healthy lifestyle behaviors — never smoking, optimal sleep, high level of physical activity, high dietary quality and moderate alcohol intake — is significantly associated with a lower risk of subsequent IBS incidence. These findings suggest that lifestyle modifications should be considered as key primary prevention strategies for IBS,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Fai Fai Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, was published online in Gut. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational, so it could not show cause and effect. It relied on self-report, which is not always accurate, and the findings may not be applicable to younger age groups. Lifestyle changes made during the follow-up period could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no competing interests. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Placebo responses in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be altered by baseline beliefs and the patient-provider relationship, according to investigators.

These findings may improve prediction of placebo responses in IBS, and may help avoid patient-provider “mismatch,” both of which can alter treatment outcomes and confound clinical trial findings, reported lead author Jeffrey M. Lackner, PsyD, chief of the division of behavioral medicine at the University of Buffalo, New York, and colleagues.

“A relatively large (40%) placebo response in IBS trials obscures potentially useful, mechanistic, and pharmacodynamically induced symptom changes among agents that do reach market,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “This begs the question of what individual difference factors distinguish placebo responders.”

While previous studies have explored placebo patient predictors in IBS, most focused on study design and baseline personal characteristics such as age and sex, with none yielding prognostically reliable findings, according to Dr. Lackner and colleagues. Mid-treatment factors such as patient-provider dynamics have not been featured in published meta-analyses, they noted, despite their potential importance.

University of Buffalo

Placebo responses in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be altered by baseline beliefs and the patient-provider relationship, according to investigators.

These findings may improve prediction of placebo responses in IBS, and may help avoid patient-provider “mismatch,” both of which can alter treatment outcomes and confound clinical trial findings, reported lead author Jeffrey M. Lackner, PsyD, chief of the division of behavioral medicine at the University of Buffalo, New York, and colleagues.

“A relatively large (40%) placebo response in IBS trials obscures potentially useful, mechanistic, and pharmacodynamically induced symptom changes among agents that do reach market,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “This begs the question of what individual difference factors distinguish placebo responders.”

While previous studies have explored placebo patient predictors in IBS, most focused on study design and baseline personal characteristics such as age and sex, with none yielding prognostically reliable findings, according to Dr. Lackner and colleagues. Mid-treatment factors such as patient-provider dynamics have not been featured in published meta-analyses, they noted, despite their potential importance.

University of Buffalo

Placebo responses in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be altered by baseline beliefs and the patient-provider relationship, according to investigators.

These findings may improve prediction of placebo responses in IBS, and may help avoid patient-provider “mismatch,” both of which can alter treatment outcomes and confound clinical trial findings, reported lead author Jeffrey M. Lackner, PsyD, chief of the division of behavioral medicine at the University of Buffalo, New York, and colleagues.

“A relatively large (40%) placebo response in IBS trials obscures potentially useful, mechanistic, and pharmacodynamically induced symptom changes among agents that do reach market,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “This begs the question of what individual difference factors distinguish placebo responders.”

While previous studies have explored placebo patient predictors in IBS, most focused on study design and baseline personal characteristics such as age and sex, with none yielding prognostically reliable findings, according to Dr. Lackner and colleagues. Mid-treatment factors such as patient-provider dynamics have not been featured in published meta-analyses, they noted, despite their potential importance.

University of Buffalo

A new position statement from the International Diabetes Federation advises using a 1-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to improve identification of people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

“There are many, many people who may appear ‘normal’ if you use A1c or fasting glucose, but if you do a glucose tolerance test, they may have an abnormality after a glucose load. …The 1-hour plasma glucose has been found to be a more sensitive biomarker for the earlier identification of these high-risk individuals,” lead author Michael Bergman, MD, professor of medicine and population health at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization in an interview.

Dr. Bergman presented the document, written by a 22-member international expert panel, on March 6, 2024, at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting. It was simultaneously published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

This is the International Diabetes Federation’s (IDF’s) proposed screening algorithm for “intermediate hyperglycemia” and type 2 diabetes:

• At-risk high-risk individuals are first screened with a validated questionnaire such as the FINDRISK or the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) risk screening tool.
• People identified as high risk should undergo laboratory screening with a 1-hour 75-g OGTT (although a 2-hour OGTT, fasting glucose, or A1c, as currently recommended by several organizations, is still considered acceptable).
• People with a 1-hour plasma glucose value at or above 155 mg (8.6 mmol/L) are considered to have intermediate hyperglycemia and should be prescribed lifestyle intervention and referred to a diabetes prevention program.
• Those with a 1-hour value greater than or equal to 209 mg/dL (11.6 mmol/L) are considered to have type 2 diabetes and should have a repeat test to confirm the diagnosis, with referral for further evaluation and treatment.

The new guidance is based on increasing evidence that the 1-hour test is a better predictor than other tests, including the 2-hour OGTT, of progression to type 2 diabetes and its associated complications, in a variety of populations. The document cites data showing that a plasma glucose of 155 mg/dl or greater on the 1-hour post-75-g test can identify people with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or who are at increased risk but who have “normal” glucose tolerance as defined by an A1c < 5.7% (38.8 mmol/mol), a fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L), or a 2-hour value below 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L).

However, even though a 1-hour test may be more convenient than the traditional 2-hour test, incorporating OGTT into busy clinical practice may still pose logistical problems and may not improve ultimate outcomes, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, told this news organization. “I worry that emphasizing a burdensome test is not going to improve diabetes screening or diabetes prevention. Doing more 1-hour glucose screening is not going to get more people into diabetes prevention programs.”

When an audience member raised the logistics concern during the session Q&A, Dr. Bergman replied, “It’s no different than recommending colonoscopy or a mammogram. … I tell patients that we want to learn more about what is going on before we make a firm diagnosis. … I’ve done more than a hundred 1-hour glucose tolerance tests and have not seen one patient who refused because of inconvenience. Everything depends on the way we discuss things with patients.”
 

Recommendation Based on Emerging Evidence

“Intermediate hyperglycemia” is the World Health Organization’s term to refer to either impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). These conditions are often called “prediabetes,” especially in the United States, but that term has been controversial because not everyone with IFG and IGT will go on to develop type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Bergman, who is also director of the NYU Langone Diabetes Prevention Program.

“With ‘prediabetes’ you’re labeling someone with a disease they may not develop. It’s not normal, but it’s not diabetes, so it’s an intermediate state,” he explained.

The statement provides a detailed summary of the data from 19 studies supporting use of a 1-hour plasma glucose of ≥ 155 mg/dL (8.6 mmol/L) to diagnose intermediate hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes, including links between that level of glycemia and worsened metabolic and atherogenic profiles, risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality, and identification of risks for obstructive sleep apnea, cystic fibrosis-related diabetes mellitus, fatty liver disease, and premature mortality.

One major problem with current testing, Dr. Bergman said, is that “there is a huge disconnect between A1c and glucose values. … Only about 30% of individuals with an abnormal A1c will have an abnormal fasting glucose, and the inverse is also true. There’s a big mismatch between the two.”

Current guidelines suggest using both A1c and fasting glucose, but Dr. Bergman said that even then “you’re still missing about 20-30% who have IGT. … Part of the problem is that the criteria we use for defining abnormal fasting and 2-hour levels are too high. … 140 [mg/dL] for the 2-hour is too high and 100 [mg/dL] fasting is too high. … And that’s one of the reasons why many people progress to type 2 diabetes, because we’re using screening thresholds that are nonphysiologic.”

But Dr. Selvin disagrees, pointing to her own work showing that “using a combination of fasting glucose and A1c for screening does an excellent job at identifying high-risk individuals.”

She’s also unconvinced by other data cited in the paper. “I am deeply skeptical about 1-hour glucose being more prognostic than all other glycemic tests. … Associations of glucose tests with incident diabetes are inherently a circular analysis since diabetes is defined by elevations in those same tests. It is helpful to look at progression of diabetes, but these analyses are not simple and doing them well, especially with head-to-head comparisons against different glycemic tests, is hard,” she said.

In her view, “lifestyle interventions and weight loss should be recommended in at-risk individuals, including those with overweight and obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, etc., regardless of 1-hour glucose test results.”

She added, “If we want to prevent diabetes, we need to focus on preventing weight gain and obesity and managing cardiometabolic risk factors. Lifestyle interventions are not effective unless they are intensive and patients are highly adherent. We need to make lifestyle interventions available and affordable for patients. That is the big barrier. I don’t think more screening with 1-hour glucose is going to help.”

Dr. Bergman pointed out that the International Diabetes Federation represents more than 100 countries, including many that are middle- and low-income. “They need a simple, cost-effective tool for screening effectively. A1c is more expensive, and fasting glucose alone will underestimate disease prevalence. So, the IDF felt, after doing a fairly comprehensive due diligence, that the data warranted recommendation of the 1-hour glucose.”

He’s hoping other organizations like the ADA and the World Health Organization will sign on to bring this guidance into the primary care arena. This news organization reached out to ADA for comment, but their representative hadn’t responded by press time.

Dr. Bergman had no disclosures. Dr. Selvin was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the International Diabetes Federation advises using a 1-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to improve identification of people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

“There are many, many people who may appear ‘normal’ if you use A1c or fasting glucose, but if you do a glucose tolerance test, they may have an abnormality after a glucose load. …The 1-hour plasma glucose has been found to be a more sensitive biomarker for the earlier identification of these high-risk individuals,” lead author Michael Bergman, MD, professor of medicine and population health at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization in an interview.

Dr. Bergman presented the document, written by a 22-member international expert panel, on March 6, 2024, at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting. It was simultaneously published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

This is the International Diabetes Federation’s (IDF’s) proposed screening algorithm for “intermediate hyperglycemia” and type 2 diabetes:

• At-risk high-risk individuals are first screened with a validated questionnaire such as the FINDRISK or the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) risk screening tool.
• People identified as high risk should undergo laboratory screening with a 1-hour 75-g OGTT (although a 2-hour OGTT, fasting glucose, or A1c, as currently recommended by several organizations, is still considered acceptable).
• People with a 1-hour plasma glucose value at or above 155 mg (8.6 mmol/L) are considered to have intermediate hyperglycemia and should be prescribed lifestyle intervention and referred to a diabetes prevention program.
• Those with a 1-hour value greater than or equal to 209 mg/dL (11.6 mmol/L) are considered to have type 2 diabetes and should have a repeat test to confirm the diagnosis, with referral for further evaluation and treatment.

The new guidance is based on increasing evidence that the 1-hour test is a better predictor than other tests, including the 2-hour OGTT, of progression to type 2 diabetes and its associated complications, in a variety of populations. The document cites data showing that a plasma glucose of 155 mg/dl or greater on the 1-hour post-75-g test can identify people with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or who are at increased risk but who have “normal” glucose tolerance as defined by an A1c < 5.7% (38.8 mmol/mol), a fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L), or a 2-hour value below 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L).

However, even though a 1-hour test may be more convenient than the traditional 2-hour test, incorporating OGTT into busy clinical practice may still pose logistical problems and may not improve ultimate outcomes, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, told this news organization. “I worry that emphasizing a burdensome test is not going to improve diabetes screening or diabetes prevention. Doing more 1-hour glucose screening is not going to get more people into diabetes prevention programs.”

When an audience member raised the logistics concern during the session Q&A, Dr. Bergman replied, “It’s no different than recommending colonoscopy or a mammogram. … I tell patients that we want to learn more about what is going on before we make a firm diagnosis. … I’ve done more than a hundred 1-hour glucose tolerance tests and have not seen one patient who refused because of inconvenience. Everything depends on the way we discuss things with patients.”
 

Recommendation Based on Emerging Evidence

“Intermediate hyperglycemia” is the World Health Organization’s term to refer to either impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). These conditions are often called “prediabetes,” especially in the United States, but that term has been controversial because not everyone with IFG and IGT will go on to develop type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Bergman, who is also director of the NYU Langone Diabetes Prevention Program.

“With ‘prediabetes’ you’re labeling someone with a disease they may not develop. It’s not normal, but it’s not diabetes, so it’s an intermediate state,” he explained.

The statement provides a detailed summary of the data from 19 studies supporting use of a 1-hour plasma glucose of ≥ 155 mg/dL (8.6 mmol/L) to diagnose intermediate hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes, including links between that level of glycemia and worsened metabolic and atherogenic profiles, risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality, and identification of risks for obstructive sleep apnea, cystic fibrosis-related diabetes mellitus, fatty liver disease, and premature mortality.

One major problem with current testing, Dr. Bergman said, is that “there is a huge disconnect between A1c and glucose values. … Only about 30% of individuals with an abnormal A1c will have an abnormal fasting glucose, and the inverse is also true. There’s a big mismatch between the two.”

Current guidelines suggest using both A1c and fasting glucose, but Dr. Bergman said that even then “you’re still missing about 20-30% who have IGT. … Part of the problem is that the criteria we use for defining abnormal fasting and 2-hour levels are too high. … 140 [mg/dL] for the 2-hour is too high and 100 [mg/dL] fasting is too high. … And that’s one of the reasons why many people progress to type 2 diabetes, because we’re using screening thresholds that are nonphysiologic.”

But Dr. Selvin disagrees, pointing to her own work showing that “using a combination of fasting glucose and A1c for screening does an excellent job at identifying high-risk individuals.”

She’s also unconvinced by other data cited in the paper. “I am deeply skeptical about 1-hour glucose being more prognostic than all other glycemic tests. … Associations of glucose tests with incident diabetes are inherently a circular analysis since diabetes is defined by elevations in those same tests. It is helpful to look at progression of diabetes, but these analyses are not simple and doing them well, especially with head-to-head comparisons against different glycemic tests, is hard,” she said.

In her view, “lifestyle interventions and weight loss should be recommended in at-risk individuals, including those with overweight and obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, etc., regardless of 1-hour glucose test results.”

She added, “If we want to prevent diabetes, we need to focus on preventing weight gain and obesity and managing cardiometabolic risk factors. Lifestyle interventions are not effective unless they are intensive and patients are highly adherent. We need to make lifestyle interventions available and affordable for patients. That is the big barrier. I don’t think more screening with 1-hour glucose is going to help.”

Dr. Bergman pointed out that the International Diabetes Federation represents more than 100 countries, including many that are middle- and low-income. “They need a simple, cost-effective tool for screening effectively. A1c is more expensive, and fasting glucose alone will underestimate disease prevalence. So, the IDF felt, after doing a fairly comprehensive due diligence, that the data warranted recommendation of the 1-hour glucose.”

He’s hoping other organizations like the ADA and the World Health Organization will sign on to bring this guidance into the primary care arena. This news organization reached out to ADA for comment, but their representative hadn’t responded by press time.

Dr. Bergman had no disclosures. Dr. Selvin was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the International Diabetes Federation advises using a 1-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to improve identification of people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

“There are many, many people who may appear ‘normal’ if you use A1c or fasting glucose, but if you do a glucose tolerance test, they may have an abnormality after a glucose load. …The 1-hour plasma glucose has been found to be a more sensitive biomarker for the earlier identification of these high-risk individuals,” lead author Michael Bergman, MD, professor of medicine and population health at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization in an interview.

Dr. Bergman presented the document, written by a 22-member international expert panel, on March 6, 2024, at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting. It was simultaneously published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

This is the International Diabetes Federation’s (IDF’s) proposed screening algorithm for “intermediate hyperglycemia” and type 2 diabetes:

• At-risk high-risk individuals are first screened with a validated questionnaire such as the FINDRISK or the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) risk screening tool.
• People identified as high risk should undergo laboratory screening with a 1-hour 75-g OGTT (although a 2-hour OGTT, fasting glucose, or A1c, as currently recommended by several organizations, is still considered acceptable).
• People with a 1-hour plasma glucose value at or above 155 mg (8.6 mmol/L) are considered to have intermediate hyperglycemia and should be prescribed lifestyle intervention and referred to a diabetes prevention program.
• Those with a 1-hour value greater than or equal to 209 mg/dL (11.6 mmol/L) are considered to have type 2 diabetes and should have a repeat test to confirm the diagnosis, with referral for further evaluation and treatment.

The new guidance is based on increasing evidence that the 1-hour test is a better predictor than other tests, including the 2-hour OGTT, of progression to type 2 diabetes and its associated complications, in a variety of populations. The document cites data showing that a plasma glucose of 155 mg/dl or greater on the 1-hour post-75-g test can identify people with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes or who are at increased risk but who have “normal” glucose tolerance as defined by an A1c < 5.7% (38.8 mmol/mol), a fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL (5.6 mmol/L), or a 2-hour value below 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L).

However, even though a 1-hour test may be more convenient than the traditional 2-hour test, incorporating OGTT into busy clinical practice may still pose logistical problems and may not improve ultimate outcomes, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, told this news organization. “I worry that emphasizing a burdensome test is not going to improve diabetes screening or diabetes prevention. Doing more 1-hour glucose screening is not going to get more people into diabetes prevention programs.”

When an audience member raised the logistics concern during the session Q&A, Dr. Bergman replied, “It’s no different than recommending colonoscopy or a mammogram. … I tell patients that we want to learn more about what is going on before we make a firm diagnosis. … I’ve done more than a hundred 1-hour glucose tolerance tests and have not seen one patient who refused because of inconvenience. Everything depends on the way we discuss things with patients.”
 

Recommendation Based on Emerging Evidence

“Intermediate hyperglycemia” is the World Health Organization’s term to refer to either impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). These conditions are often called “prediabetes,” especially in the United States, but that term has been controversial because not everyone with IFG and IGT will go on to develop type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Bergman, who is also director of the NYU Langone Diabetes Prevention Program.

“With ‘prediabetes’ you’re labeling someone with a disease they may not develop. It’s not normal, but it’s not diabetes, so it’s an intermediate state,” he explained.

The statement provides a detailed summary of the data from 19 studies supporting use of a 1-hour plasma glucose of ≥ 155 mg/dL (8.6 mmol/L) to diagnose intermediate hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes, including links between that level of glycemia and worsened metabolic and atherogenic profiles, risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality, and identification of risks for obstructive sleep apnea, cystic fibrosis-related diabetes mellitus, fatty liver disease, and premature mortality.

One major problem with current testing, Dr. Bergman said, is that “there is a huge disconnect between A1c and glucose values. … Only about 30% of individuals with an abnormal A1c will have an abnormal fasting glucose, and the inverse is also true. There’s a big mismatch between the two.”

Current guidelines suggest using both A1c and fasting glucose, but Dr. Bergman said that even then “you’re still missing about 20-30% who have IGT. … Part of the problem is that the criteria we use for defining abnormal fasting and 2-hour levels are too high. … 140 [mg/dL] for the 2-hour is too high and 100 [mg/dL] fasting is too high. … And that’s one of the reasons why many people progress to type 2 diabetes, because we’re using screening thresholds that are nonphysiologic.”

But Dr. Selvin disagrees, pointing to her own work showing that “using a combination of fasting glucose and A1c for screening does an excellent job at identifying high-risk individuals.”

She’s also unconvinced by other data cited in the paper. “I am deeply skeptical about 1-hour glucose being more prognostic than all other glycemic tests. … Associations of glucose tests with incident diabetes are inherently a circular analysis since diabetes is defined by elevations in those same tests. It is helpful to look at progression of diabetes, but these analyses are not simple and doing them well, especially with head-to-head comparisons against different glycemic tests, is hard,” she said.

In her view, “lifestyle interventions and weight loss should be recommended in at-risk individuals, including those with overweight and obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, etc., regardless of 1-hour glucose test results.”

She added, “If we want to prevent diabetes, we need to focus on preventing weight gain and obesity and managing cardiometabolic risk factors. Lifestyle interventions are not effective unless they are intensive and patients are highly adherent. We need to make lifestyle interventions available and affordable for patients. That is the big barrier. I don’t think more screening with 1-hour glucose is going to help.”

Dr. Bergman pointed out that the International Diabetes Federation represents more than 100 countries, including many that are middle- and low-income. “They need a simple, cost-effective tool for screening effectively. A1c is more expensive, and fasting glucose alone will underestimate disease prevalence. So, the IDF felt, after doing a fairly comprehensive due diligence, that the data warranted recommendation of the 1-hour glucose.”

He’s hoping other organizations like the ADA and the World Health Organization will sign on to bring this guidance into the primary care arena. This news organization reached out to ADA for comment, but their representative hadn’t responded by press time.

Dr. Bergman had no disclosures. Dr. Selvin was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.