User login
MDedge latest news is breaking news from medical conferences, journals, guidelines, the FDA and CDC.
Sustained Benefits With TransCon PTH in Hypoparathyroidism
TOPLINE:
Long-term treatment with TransCon parathyroid hormone (PTH), a replacement therapy for hypoparathyroidism, demonstrates sustained efficacy and safety in patients with hypoparathyroidism over 52 weeks, with 95% of participants able to discontinue conventional therapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Conventional therapy for hypoparathyroidism (active vitamin D and elemental calcium) alleviates symptoms of hypocalcemia, but it does not improve insufficient PTH levels and is linked to long-term complications, such as nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and renal dysfunction.
- This phase 3 (PaTHway) trial aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TransCon PTH (palopegteriparatide) in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
- Overall, 82 patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism (mean age, 48.6 years; 78% women; 93% White) were randomly assigned to receive TransCon PTH or placebo, both coadministered with conventional therapy for 26 weeks.
- At the 26-week visit, patients who completed the blinded treatment (n = 79) were assigned to receive only TransCon PTH with conventional therapy in an ongoing 156-week open-label extension.
- For this analysis at week 52, the main efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients (n = 78) with normal serum calcium levels (8.3-10.6 mg/dL) and independence from conventional therapy (active vitamin D and therapeutic doses of calcium); safety assessments included serum chemistries, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and treatment-emergent adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 52, the majority of the patients receiving TransCon PTH achieved normal serum calcium levels within the normal range (86%) and independence from conventional therapy (95%). None required active vitamin D.
- In secondary endpoints, patients receiving TransCon PTH showed sustained improvement in Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale scores, reflecting better symptom management, enhanced functioning, and overall well-being through week 52.
- At week 52, the mean 24-hour urine calcium excretion in patients first randomized to TransCon PTH was 185.1 mg/d, remaining well below the upper limit of normal (≤ 250 mg/d), while the placebo group mean fell to 223.1 mg/d during the open-label extension of TransCon PTH.
- TransCon PTH was well-tolerated, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate and none leading to treatment discontinuation.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest that TransCon PTH may improve outcomes and advance the standard of care for adults living with hypoparathyroidism,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Bart L. Clarke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included the open-label design during the extension period, which may have introduced bias in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, the study population was predominantly women and White, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of TransCon PTH on renal complications. One patient died of fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study drug.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Ascendis Pharma A/S. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Ascendis Pharma. The other authors declared receiving grants, research funding, honoraria, serving as consultants, advisory board members, study investigators, and other ties with Ascendis Pharma and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Long-term treatment with TransCon parathyroid hormone (PTH), a replacement therapy for hypoparathyroidism, demonstrates sustained efficacy and safety in patients with hypoparathyroidism over 52 weeks, with 95% of participants able to discontinue conventional therapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Conventional therapy for hypoparathyroidism (active vitamin D and elemental calcium) alleviates symptoms of hypocalcemia, but it does not improve insufficient PTH levels and is linked to long-term complications, such as nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and renal dysfunction.
- This phase 3 (PaTHway) trial aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TransCon PTH (palopegteriparatide) in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
- Overall, 82 patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism (mean age, 48.6 years; 78% women; 93% White) were randomly assigned to receive TransCon PTH or placebo, both coadministered with conventional therapy for 26 weeks.
- At the 26-week visit, patients who completed the blinded treatment (n = 79) were assigned to receive only TransCon PTH with conventional therapy in an ongoing 156-week open-label extension.
- For this analysis at week 52, the main efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients (n = 78) with normal serum calcium levels (8.3-10.6 mg/dL) and independence from conventional therapy (active vitamin D and therapeutic doses of calcium); safety assessments included serum chemistries, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and treatment-emergent adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 52, the majority of the patients receiving TransCon PTH achieved normal serum calcium levels within the normal range (86%) and independence from conventional therapy (95%). None required active vitamin D.
- In secondary endpoints, patients receiving TransCon PTH showed sustained improvement in Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale scores, reflecting better symptom management, enhanced functioning, and overall well-being through week 52.
- At week 52, the mean 24-hour urine calcium excretion in patients first randomized to TransCon PTH was 185.1 mg/d, remaining well below the upper limit of normal (≤ 250 mg/d), while the placebo group mean fell to 223.1 mg/d during the open-label extension of TransCon PTH.
- TransCon PTH was well-tolerated, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate and none leading to treatment discontinuation.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest that TransCon PTH may improve outcomes and advance the standard of care for adults living with hypoparathyroidism,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Bart L. Clarke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included the open-label design during the extension period, which may have introduced bias in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, the study population was predominantly women and White, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of TransCon PTH on renal complications. One patient died of fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study drug.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Ascendis Pharma A/S. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Ascendis Pharma. The other authors declared receiving grants, research funding, honoraria, serving as consultants, advisory board members, study investigators, and other ties with Ascendis Pharma and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Long-term treatment with TransCon parathyroid hormone (PTH), a replacement therapy for hypoparathyroidism, demonstrates sustained efficacy and safety in patients with hypoparathyroidism over 52 weeks, with 95% of participants able to discontinue conventional therapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Conventional therapy for hypoparathyroidism (active vitamin D and elemental calcium) alleviates symptoms of hypocalcemia, but it does not improve insufficient PTH levels and is linked to long-term complications, such as nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and renal dysfunction.
- This phase 3 (PaTHway) trial aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TransCon PTH (palopegteriparatide) in adults with hypoparathyroidism.
- Overall, 82 patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism (mean age, 48.6 years; 78% women; 93% White) were randomly assigned to receive TransCon PTH or placebo, both coadministered with conventional therapy for 26 weeks.
- At the 26-week visit, patients who completed the blinded treatment (n = 79) were assigned to receive only TransCon PTH with conventional therapy in an ongoing 156-week open-label extension.
- For this analysis at week 52, the main efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients (n = 78) with normal serum calcium levels (8.3-10.6 mg/dL) and independence from conventional therapy (active vitamin D and therapeutic doses of calcium); safety assessments included serum chemistries, 24-hour urine calcium excretion, and treatment-emergent adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 52, the majority of the patients receiving TransCon PTH achieved normal serum calcium levels within the normal range (86%) and independence from conventional therapy (95%). None required active vitamin D.
- In secondary endpoints, patients receiving TransCon PTH showed sustained improvement in Hypoparathyroidism Patient Experience Scale scores, reflecting better symptom management, enhanced functioning, and overall well-being through week 52.
- At week 52, the mean 24-hour urine calcium excretion in patients first randomized to TransCon PTH was 185.1 mg/d, remaining well below the upper limit of normal (≤ 250 mg/d), while the placebo group mean fell to 223.1 mg/d during the open-label extension of TransCon PTH.
- TransCon PTH was well-tolerated, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being mild or moderate and none leading to treatment discontinuation.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results suggest that TransCon PTH may improve outcomes and advance the standard of care for adults living with hypoparathyroidism,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Bart L. Clarke, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included the open-label design during the extension period, which may have introduced bias in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, the study population was predominantly women and White, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effects of TransCon PTH on renal complications. One patient died of fatal cardiac arrest deemed unrelated to the study drug.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Ascendis Pharma A/S. Seven authors declared being current or former employees of Ascendis Pharma. The other authors declared receiving grants, research funding, honoraria, serving as consultants, advisory board members, study investigators, and other ties with Ascendis Pharma and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alcohol Use Disorder Therapy Remains Underutilized in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In an analysis of commercially insured Americans, AUD medications were prescribed to only 1 in 50 patients with ALD and about 1 in 10 patients with acute alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH).
“Providers caring for these patients should consider early initiation of this therapy in select cases,” said lead author Alex R. Jones, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“Based on additional analyses looking at the prescriber subspecialty, we didn’t identify any gastroenterologists or hepatologists who prescribed pharmacotherapy,” he said. “This could be a great opportunity for hepatologists to engage in the pharmacologic treatment of AUD.”
Jones and colleagues analyzed 2006-2021 data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics, a nationally representative database of commercially insured patients in the United States. They looked for AUD pharmacologic treatment at any time after AUD diagnosis, including prescriptions for gabapentin, naltrexone, topiramate, acamprosate, baclofen, and disulfiram.
Among 28,625 patients with AUD (defined as at least two outpatient codes or at least one inpatient code), 1201 had ALD with cirrhosis and 439 had AAH.
Pharmacologic therapy was prescribed in 3924 (14.5%) patients without ALD, 28 (2.3%) with ALD, and 42 (9.8%) with AAH.
In addition, one-time prescriptions were observed in 1113 (28.4%) patients without ALD, three patients (10.7%) with ALD, and eight patients (18.6%) with AAH.
Overall, 64.5% of the general population consisted of men. About 46% had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance use disorder (SUD), and 35.7% had a non-AUD SUD.
Patients who received AUD pharmacotherapy tended to be older, at a median age of 45 years, than those aged 42 years without a prescription.
The median time to prescription was 302 days, with no significant differences based on the presence of liver disease.
By medication, gabapentin was prescribed most often (9.4%), followed by oral naltrexone (2.6%) and topiramate (2%). Oral naltrexone was prescribed at a lower rate in patients with ALD and at a higher rate in patients with AAH than in patients without ALD. Baclofen was also prescribed at lower rates in patients with ALD and AAH.
In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, several characteristics were more significantly associated with pharmacologic therapy, such as age ≥ 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33), female sex (aOR, 1.31), a non-liver Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 (aOR, 2.21), and psychiatric comorbidities (aOR, 2.76).
On the other hand, the presence of hepatic decompensation — defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or bleeding varices — was associated with lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy (aOR, 0.08). ALD cirrhosis (non-AAH) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.24).
The study was limited by only incorporating patients with commercial insurance, lacking demographic details related to race or ethnicity, and potentially misclassifying patients despite validated definitions of ALD and AUD, Jones said.
As the study couldn’t determine the indications for prescriptions, such as gabapentin use for migraines or diabetes-associated neuropathy, for instance, future studies could look at these precise details, he added.
“It’s important to know we’re underutilizing therapies that we have a lot of information about, such as gabapentin, which is an old medication that we should feel fairly comfortable using,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, in Florida. Patricia Jones comoderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.
“I also expect that, if a future study reviewed this data and excluded people with valid indications, such as migraines or diabetic neuropathy, we’d see even lower rates of prescription,” she said.
From a clinical perspective, patient communication and clinical decision-making are key, Patricia Jones added, particularly when clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists may not offer this type of therapy or patients refuse this type of therapy.
“We need to think about our practice patterns and how we can offer therapy,” she said. “In general, we know these medications are very safe. Even though they’re not widely used in people with cirrhosis, there’s not enough evidence to suggest we shouldn’t use them.”
Alex Jones and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In an analysis of commercially insured Americans, AUD medications were prescribed to only 1 in 50 patients with ALD and about 1 in 10 patients with acute alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH).
“Providers caring for these patients should consider early initiation of this therapy in select cases,” said lead author Alex R. Jones, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“Based on additional analyses looking at the prescriber subspecialty, we didn’t identify any gastroenterologists or hepatologists who prescribed pharmacotherapy,” he said. “This could be a great opportunity for hepatologists to engage in the pharmacologic treatment of AUD.”
Jones and colleagues analyzed 2006-2021 data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics, a nationally representative database of commercially insured patients in the United States. They looked for AUD pharmacologic treatment at any time after AUD diagnosis, including prescriptions for gabapentin, naltrexone, topiramate, acamprosate, baclofen, and disulfiram.
Among 28,625 patients with AUD (defined as at least two outpatient codes or at least one inpatient code), 1201 had ALD with cirrhosis and 439 had AAH.
Pharmacologic therapy was prescribed in 3924 (14.5%) patients without ALD, 28 (2.3%) with ALD, and 42 (9.8%) with AAH.
In addition, one-time prescriptions were observed in 1113 (28.4%) patients without ALD, three patients (10.7%) with ALD, and eight patients (18.6%) with AAH.
Overall, 64.5% of the general population consisted of men. About 46% had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance use disorder (SUD), and 35.7% had a non-AUD SUD.
Patients who received AUD pharmacotherapy tended to be older, at a median age of 45 years, than those aged 42 years without a prescription.
The median time to prescription was 302 days, with no significant differences based on the presence of liver disease.
By medication, gabapentin was prescribed most often (9.4%), followed by oral naltrexone (2.6%) and topiramate (2%). Oral naltrexone was prescribed at a lower rate in patients with ALD and at a higher rate in patients with AAH than in patients without ALD. Baclofen was also prescribed at lower rates in patients with ALD and AAH.
In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, several characteristics were more significantly associated with pharmacologic therapy, such as age ≥ 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33), female sex (aOR, 1.31), a non-liver Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 (aOR, 2.21), and psychiatric comorbidities (aOR, 2.76).
On the other hand, the presence of hepatic decompensation — defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or bleeding varices — was associated with lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy (aOR, 0.08). ALD cirrhosis (non-AAH) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.24).
The study was limited by only incorporating patients with commercial insurance, lacking demographic details related to race or ethnicity, and potentially misclassifying patients despite validated definitions of ALD and AUD, Jones said.
As the study couldn’t determine the indications for prescriptions, such as gabapentin use for migraines or diabetes-associated neuropathy, for instance, future studies could look at these precise details, he added.
“It’s important to know we’re underutilizing therapies that we have a lot of information about, such as gabapentin, which is an old medication that we should feel fairly comfortable using,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, in Florida. Patricia Jones comoderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.
“I also expect that, if a future study reviewed this data and excluded people with valid indications, such as migraines or diabetic neuropathy, we’d see even lower rates of prescription,” she said.
From a clinical perspective, patient communication and clinical decision-making are key, Patricia Jones added, particularly when clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists may not offer this type of therapy or patients refuse this type of therapy.
“We need to think about our practice patterns and how we can offer therapy,” she said. “In general, we know these medications are very safe. Even though they’re not widely used in people with cirrhosis, there’s not enough evidence to suggest we shouldn’t use them.”
Alex Jones and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In an analysis of commercially insured Americans, AUD medications were prescribed to only 1 in 50 patients with ALD and about 1 in 10 patients with acute alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH).
“Providers caring for these patients should consider early initiation of this therapy in select cases,” said lead author Alex R. Jones, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“Based on additional analyses looking at the prescriber subspecialty, we didn’t identify any gastroenterologists or hepatologists who prescribed pharmacotherapy,” he said. “This could be a great opportunity for hepatologists to engage in the pharmacologic treatment of AUD.”
Jones and colleagues analyzed 2006-2021 data from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics, a nationally representative database of commercially insured patients in the United States. They looked for AUD pharmacologic treatment at any time after AUD diagnosis, including prescriptions for gabapentin, naltrexone, topiramate, acamprosate, baclofen, and disulfiram.
Among 28,625 patients with AUD (defined as at least two outpatient codes or at least one inpatient code), 1201 had ALD with cirrhosis and 439 had AAH.
Pharmacologic therapy was prescribed in 3924 (14.5%) patients without ALD, 28 (2.3%) with ALD, and 42 (9.8%) with AAH.
In addition, one-time prescriptions were observed in 1113 (28.4%) patients without ALD, three patients (10.7%) with ALD, and eight patients (18.6%) with AAH.
Overall, 64.5% of the general population consisted of men. About 46% had a psychiatric diagnosis other than substance use disorder (SUD), and 35.7% had a non-AUD SUD.
Patients who received AUD pharmacotherapy tended to be older, at a median age of 45 years, than those aged 42 years without a prescription.
The median time to prescription was 302 days, with no significant differences based on the presence of liver disease.
By medication, gabapentin was prescribed most often (9.4%), followed by oral naltrexone (2.6%) and topiramate (2%). Oral naltrexone was prescribed at a lower rate in patients with ALD and at a higher rate in patients with AAH than in patients without ALD. Baclofen was also prescribed at lower rates in patients with ALD and AAH.
In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, several characteristics were more significantly associated with pharmacologic therapy, such as age ≥ 50 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.33), female sex (aOR, 1.31), a non-liver Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 (aOR, 2.21), and psychiatric comorbidities (aOR, 2.76).
On the other hand, the presence of hepatic decompensation — defined as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or bleeding varices — was associated with lower odds of receiving pharmacotherapy (aOR, 0.08). ALD cirrhosis (non-AAH) also had lower odds (aOR, 0.24).
The study was limited by only incorporating patients with commercial insurance, lacking demographic details related to race or ethnicity, and potentially misclassifying patients despite validated definitions of ALD and AUD, Jones said.
As the study couldn’t determine the indications for prescriptions, such as gabapentin use for migraines or diabetes-associated neuropathy, for instance, future studies could look at these precise details, he added.
“It’s important to know we’re underutilizing therapies that we have a lot of information about, such as gabapentin, which is an old medication that we should feel fairly comfortable using,” said Patricia Jones, MD, a hepatologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, in Florida. Patricia Jones comoderated the plenary session on small intestine, functional, and liver research.
“I also expect that, if a future study reviewed this data and excluded people with valid indications, such as migraines or diabetic neuropathy, we’d see even lower rates of prescription,” she said.
From a clinical perspective, patient communication and clinical decision-making are key, Patricia Jones added, particularly when clinical gastroenterologists and hepatologists may not offer this type of therapy or patients refuse this type of therapy.
“We need to think about our practice patterns and how we can offer therapy,” she said. “In general, we know these medications are very safe. Even though they’re not widely used in people with cirrhosis, there’s not enough evidence to suggest we shouldn’t use them.”
Alex Jones and Patricia Jones reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Yields Durable Weight Loss at 10 Years
PHILADELPHIA —
“The procedure is dependable and safe and should be considered among individuals who have not attained their desired results through lifestyle medications and those who are not eligible for or choose not to undergo bariatric procedures,” said Ali Lahooti, with the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City. He presented his research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Obesity is a growing global health challenge. Lifestyle modification as a standalone therapy has limited effectiveness achieving weight loss. Pharmacotherapies are more efficacious, but they’re also associated with higher costs of and risk for side effects, leading to lower rates of compliance, Lahooti explained.
Bariatric surgery remains the most effective therapy for management of obesity and improvement of comorbid conditions, yet < 1% of candidates undergo a surgical intervention either because of access, cost, or fear of the procedure.
“Endoscopic treatments for obesity, such as ESG, can potentially fill this gap by combining durable weight loss with lower risk and costs,” Lahooti said.
He and his colleagues assessed outcomes out to 10 years in 404 patients (mean age, 45 years; 76% women; mean body mass index, 37.3) who underwent ESG between 2013 and 2024 at a single large tertiary hospital.
Out of the 404 patients, 397, 335, 249, and 110 patients were eligible for 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up, with complete follow-up rates of 85%, 66%, 79%, and 62%, respectively.
The primary outcome was weight loss at 10 years after ESG reported at percent total body weight loss (%TBWL).
At 10 years, mean %TBWL (the primary outcome) was 10.5% — with 53% of patients maintaining at least 5% TBWL and 42% maintaining at least 10% weight loss, Lahooti reported.
ESG had a favorable safety profile; 20% of patients experienced mild abdominal pain, constipation, heartburn, and nausea after the procedure that typically resolved within 2 weeks of the procedure.
“There were a total of three moderate adverse events — two perigastric leaks, one repaired endoscopically, and another that only required antibiotics,” Lahooti reported. There were no severe or fatal adverse events.
About 11% of patients had endoscopic revision via retightening or resuturing at 10 years, the study team noted in their conference abstract.
Bariatric Surgery Remains Gold Standard
Lahooti shared that in his experience, some patients will need a revision at “about 40 months,” but at the same time, he’s seen some patients at 10 years “and their sutures are still in place.”
Session comoderator Shivangi Kothari, MD, with the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, congratulated Lahooti for providing “robust” long-term data on ESG and said, “there is a need for more studies like this.”
In an interview, Ann M. Rogers, MD, president of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, noted that bariatric surgery remains the “gold standard for weight loss and metabolic improvements,” with studies showing “around 30%” TWBL at 10 years, compared with about 10% at 10 years in this study.
Another key caveat, said Rogers, is that there are practical barriers to ESG; insurance typically does not cover the procedure because they view it as “cosmetic.”
The study had no commercial funding. Lahooti and Rogers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
“The procedure is dependable and safe and should be considered among individuals who have not attained their desired results through lifestyle medications and those who are not eligible for or choose not to undergo bariatric procedures,” said Ali Lahooti, with the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City. He presented his research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Obesity is a growing global health challenge. Lifestyle modification as a standalone therapy has limited effectiveness achieving weight loss. Pharmacotherapies are more efficacious, but they’re also associated with higher costs of and risk for side effects, leading to lower rates of compliance, Lahooti explained.
Bariatric surgery remains the most effective therapy for management of obesity and improvement of comorbid conditions, yet < 1% of candidates undergo a surgical intervention either because of access, cost, or fear of the procedure.
“Endoscopic treatments for obesity, such as ESG, can potentially fill this gap by combining durable weight loss with lower risk and costs,” Lahooti said.
He and his colleagues assessed outcomes out to 10 years in 404 patients (mean age, 45 years; 76% women; mean body mass index, 37.3) who underwent ESG between 2013 and 2024 at a single large tertiary hospital.
Out of the 404 patients, 397, 335, 249, and 110 patients were eligible for 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up, with complete follow-up rates of 85%, 66%, 79%, and 62%, respectively.
The primary outcome was weight loss at 10 years after ESG reported at percent total body weight loss (%TBWL).
At 10 years, mean %TBWL (the primary outcome) was 10.5% — with 53% of patients maintaining at least 5% TBWL and 42% maintaining at least 10% weight loss, Lahooti reported.
ESG had a favorable safety profile; 20% of patients experienced mild abdominal pain, constipation, heartburn, and nausea after the procedure that typically resolved within 2 weeks of the procedure.
“There were a total of three moderate adverse events — two perigastric leaks, one repaired endoscopically, and another that only required antibiotics,” Lahooti reported. There were no severe or fatal adverse events.
About 11% of patients had endoscopic revision via retightening or resuturing at 10 years, the study team noted in their conference abstract.
Bariatric Surgery Remains Gold Standard
Lahooti shared that in his experience, some patients will need a revision at “about 40 months,” but at the same time, he’s seen some patients at 10 years “and their sutures are still in place.”
Session comoderator Shivangi Kothari, MD, with the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, congratulated Lahooti for providing “robust” long-term data on ESG and said, “there is a need for more studies like this.”
In an interview, Ann M. Rogers, MD, president of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, noted that bariatric surgery remains the “gold standard for weight loss and metabolic improvements,” with studies showing “around 30%” TWBL at 10 years, compared with about 10% at 10 years in this study.
Another key caveat, said Rogers, is that there are practical barriers to ESG; insurance typically does not cover the procedure because they view it as “cosmetic.”
The study had no commercial funding. Lahooti and Rogers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
“The procedure is dependable and safe and should be considered among individuals who have not attained their desired results through lifestyle medications and those who are not eligible for or choose not to undergo bariatric procedures,” said Ali Lahooti, with the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City. He presented his research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Obesity is a growing global health challenge. Lifestyle modification as a standalone therapy has limited effectiveness achieving weight loss. Pharmacotherapies are more efficacious, but they’re also associated with higher costs of and risk for side effects, leading to lower rates of compliance, Lahooti explained.
Bariatric surgery remains the most effective therapy for management of obesity and improvement of comorbid conditions, yet < 1% of candidates undergo a surgical intervention either because of access, cost, or fear of the procedure.
“Endoscopic treatments for obesity, such as ESG, can potentially fill this gap by combining durable weight loss with lower risk and costs,” Lahooti said.
He and his colleagues assessed outcomes out to 10 years in 404 patients (mean age, 45 years; 76% women; mean body mass index, 37.3) who underwent ESG between 2013 and 2024 at a single large tertiary hospital.
Out of the 404 patients, 397, 335, 249, and 110 patients were eligible for 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up, with complete follow-up rates of 85%, 66%, 79%, and 62%, respectively.
The primary outcome was weight loss at 10 years after ESG reported at percent total body weight loss (%TBWL).
At 10 years, mean %TBWL (the primary outcome) was 10.5% — with 53% of patients maintaining at least 5% TBWL and 42% maintaining at least 10% weight loss, Lahooti reported.
ESG had a favorable safety profile; 20% of patients experienced mild abdominal pain, constipation, heartburn, and nausea after the procedure that typically resolved within 2 weeks of the procedure.
“There were a total of three moderate adverse events — two perigastric leaks, one repaired endoscopically, and another that only required antibiotics,” Lahooti reported. There were no severe or fatal adverse events.
About 11% of patients had endoscopic revision via retightening or resuturing at 10 years, the study team noted in their conference abstract.
Bariatric Surgery Remains Gold Standard
Lahooti shared that in his experience, some patients will need a revision at “about 40 months,” but at the same time, he’s seen some patients at 10 years “and their sutures are still in place.”
Session comoderator Shivangi Kothari, MD, with the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, congratulated Lahooti for providing “robust” long-term data on ESG and said, “there is a need for more studies like this.”
In an interview, Ann M. Rogers, MD, president of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, noted that bariatric surgery remains the “gold standard for weight loss and metabolic improvements,” with studies showing “around 30%” TWBL at 10 years, compared with about 10% at 10 years in this study.
Another key caveat, said Rogers, is that there are practical barriers to ESG; insurance typically does not cover the procedure because they view it as “cosmetic.”
The study had no commercial funding. Lahooti and Rogers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
PRECISE-DAPT Score Predicts GI Bleeding Risk Among Post-PCI Patients
PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year.
“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.
Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.
“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”
Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.
In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.
Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.
The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.
Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.
In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).
However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.
“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.
“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”
Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.
“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”
The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year.
“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.
Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.
“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”
Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.
In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.
Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.
The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.
Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.
In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).
However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.
“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.
“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”
Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.
“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”
The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains risky in terms of morbidity and mortality, but the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score could help predict that risk, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
In a predominantly Hispanic population in Texas, 2.5% of post-PCI patients on DAPT had GI bleeding in the first year.
“Our study established that the PRECISE-DAPT score possesses a moderate predictive accuracy not only for overall bleeding risk but also specifically for gastrointestinal bleeding,” said lead author Jesus Guzman, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.
Current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend DAPT for 6-12 months post-PCI, with consideration for shorter durations in patients with lower ischemic risks but higher bleeding risks.
“Interestingly, some of these patients were on DAPT for more than 2 years, which goes beyond the guidelines,” he said. “In this patient population, this has to do with them being lost to follow-up and getting reestablished, and they kept refilling their prescriptions.”
Guzman and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DAPT after PCI from 2014 to 2021. They looked for GI bleeding rates at 1 year and across the duration of the study period, as well as endoscopic indications, findings, concurrent antiplatelet therapy, and the primary cause of bleeding.
In addition, the research team evaluated the predictive value of the PRECISE-DAPT score, which categorizes patients based on low risk (≤ 17), moderate risk (18-24), and high risk (≥ 25) for bleeding. The score aims to optimize the balance between bleeding and ischemic risks, Guzman said, by incorporating five factors: Age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and history of spontaneous bleeding.
Among 1067 patients, 563 (57.9%) received clopidogrel and 409 (42%) received ticagrelor. The overall cohort was 66.6% men, 77.1% Hispanic, and had a mean age of 62 years.
The GI bleeding rate was 2.5% at 1-year post-PCI among 27 patients and 3.7% for the study duration among 39 patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years.
Among the 39 GI bleeds, 41% were lower GI bleeds, 28% were upper GI bleeds, 15% were small bowel bleeds, and 15% were undetermined. The most frequent etiology was colon cancer, accounting for 18% of bleeds, followed by 15% for gastric ulcers, 10% for diverticular bleeds, and 10% for hemorrhoidal bleeds.
In general, analyses indicated no significant differences in GI bleeding between patients on clopidogrel (21.2%) and those on ticagrelor (19.2%).
However, the odds of GI bleeding were significantly higher in patients with high-risk PRECISE-DAPT scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.5) and moderate-risk scores (OR, 2.8) than in those with low-risk scores. The majority of patients without GI bleeding had scores < 17, whereas the majority of patients with GI bleeding had scores > 24. An optimal threshold for the PRECISE-DAPT score was identified as ≥ 19.
“When patients on DAPT present with GI bleeding, it can be a clinical conundrum for gastroenterologists and cardiologists, especially when it can be a life-or-death event, and stopping DAPT can increase risk of thrombosis,” said Jeff Taclob, MD, a hepatology fellow at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis. Taclob, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.
“In this population in El Paso, in particular, many patients don’t have adequate healthcare, may be lost to follow-up, and get their prescriptions filled elsewhere, such as Juárez, Mexico,” he said. “Then they come in with this life-threatening bleed, so we need to focus more on their risks.”
Paying attention to specific patient populations, cultures, and values remains important for patient communication and clinical decision-making, Taclob noted.
“In this population of older men, there’s often a macho persona where they don’t want to seek help,” he said. “DAPT criteria could differ in other populations, but here, the PRECISE-DAPT score appeared to help.”
The study was awarded the ACG Outstanding Research Award in the GI Bleeding Category (Trainee). Guzman and Taclob reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
From Mexico City to the Heights of Leukemia Medicine
His work has helped transform CML into an often-survivable disease instead of one that took the lives of most patients within 5 years.
“It’s been remarkable to see the evolution in CML and to be part of that transition as a fellow, as faculty, and as leader of some of the trials,” said Cortes, who directs the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University. “I’m the luckiest person in the world.”
In an interview, Cortes talked about his youth in Mexico, his research path, and his close connections to cancer medicine in Latin America.
Q: You grew up in Mexico City. What was your family like?
A: “My father grew up very poor in a small town in Michoacán in the southwest part of Mexico. In Mexico City, he had a tiny grocery store in an old-fashioned market, and we were lower middle class.
One of the things I learned was to work hard. There’s nobody I know who worked as hard as my father. He opened his store every day of the year, [Mexican] Independence Day or New Year’s or Christmas. He worked hard so we could have a better life than he did.
We learned English from a very young age. My elementary school was called Westminster School because he wanted a school where we would learn English.
As for my mother, she stayed with us [at home] and made sure we did our homework and were taken care of. I learned about being honest and dedicating to what you were doing.”
Q: You trained at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Health Sciences and Nutrition in Mexico City. Then what happened?
A: “Through encouragement by my dermatologist older brother and a mentor at the institution where I was training as a hematologist, I decided to come to the United States.
My initial focus was going to be on coagulation and thrombosis. I came to Houston (Texas) for a fellowship at the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Then I started doing my rotation for the malignant part of the fellowship at MD Anderson Cancer Center [Houston]. One of my first rotations was with Susan M. O’Brien, [MD,] who became my greatest mentor throughout my career. I really enjoyed my rotation. I thought she was great clinically, and she was doing research and teaching. That’s what I wanted for my career.”
Q: What drew you to leukemia specifically?
A: “Dr O’Brien worked in leukemia during my initial rotation, and I really loved it. It was hard work, but it was very inspiring to see the clinical research and the things you could for patients. She had a lot of joy doing that.
I told my program director I’d change and transfer to MD Anderson, and I ended up staying at MD Anderson for 23 years.”
Q: What was leukemia research like in those days?
A: “We didn’t have the understanding of the biology and the new drugs that we have now. When I started in Mexico, we didn’t even have hydroxyurea. What we were doing was much more basic. But still, the field sounded like a great field to be involved with because they were doing so many trials and had an outstanding database.
Because of the influence of Dr [Moshe] Talpaz, [MD,] I started getting very involved with CML. In my initial years as a young faculty, I started working with him on interferon. Then imatinib appeared. I saw even from the phase 1 study how impressive the outcomes were in patients who had no response to anything and were in bad shape.”
Q: What CML medications have you worked on?
A: “I’ve been involved with all of them. Imatinib early on, then I led trials with dasatinib and nilotinib. Then, I led the registration trials of bosutinib and ponatinib. More recently, I was part of the development of asciminib.”
Q: What were some of the biggest challenges in CML research?
A: “We had an opportunity to do a lot of analysis about TKIs [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] when these were new drugs. It was a very steep curve of learning, how to monitor and manage side effects.
Then patients were starting to have resistance to two to three TKIs. Ponatinib came along, and it was an incredibly effective drug. But after it was approved, we started to recognize the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes.
That was unexpected and not something that was known for any TKI. It was a big challenge. The drug was taken off the market for some time, and trials were put on hold by the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration].
We scrambled to understand the mechanism of action. For a year or two, it was a stressful time. But eventually we moved past it, and we learned a lot.”
Q: What sort of work have you done in Latin America?
A: “I’ve always been very close to Latin America. I have many good friends and colleagues there, and I’ve always been interested in working with them.
We’ve done research and studies and created an organization called Latin American Leukemia Net to develop more trials in Latin America. The most rewarding thing has been the educational programs for patients that we’ve done, helping them understand the disease, the treatments, and the goals of treatment.
We’ve conducted a number of programs, and they have been effective, well-attended, and well received. I still work with my colleagues to develop local guidelines and do collaborative research.”
Q: What convinced you to leave MD Anderson for Georgia?
A: “I never thought I’d leave MD Anderson. I had my well-oiled machine of clinical trials, my clinic, and my fellowship program. But the one thing that I wanted to see if I could try next was to develop an institution.
That was the goal here, to take the Georgia Cancer Center to NCI [National Cancer Institute] designation. So, I thought, ‘That’s a nice challenge.’ It may be a good opportunity to try a different aspect of what it means to be an oncologist.
There are days that you think, ‘What am I doing here?’ when you have to deal with budgets and personnel and all these things. But it’s part of the process. It’s still good to know that we have a goal, and that we’re going to make it.
Also, I still see my patients, and I enjoy that I still do some research and mentoring.”
Q: What’s the current state of CML treatment?
A: “Many patients have a pretty much normal life expectancy while [on therapy]. Still, one of the goals of many patients is to stop therapy. But that’s a reality only for a small percentage of patients. How can we make that happen for more patients?”
Q: By stopping therapy, do you mean curing the cancer?
A: “Yes, pretty much. You have a good response, you stop the therapy, and it doesn’t come back.
There are also patients who really don’t do well. We hear about CML being with a disease with such a good outcome, but we have patients for whom nothing works. Is it a matter of [needing] another TKI, or do we need to look at something else?”
Q: What do you see on the horizon?
A: “We are developing new approaches like combination therapies. We’re scratching the surface on that. We need to understand which combinations work, and where and when.
And we can make more efficient uses of the drugs we have now in terms of which ones to use when, the doses, the safety profiles. I think we can do better.”
Cortes disclosed consulting for Amphivena, Astellas, Bio-Path, BioLineRx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda and research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunogen, Jazz, Merus, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Tolero and Trovagene.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
His work has helped transform CML into an often-survivable disease instead of one that took the lives of most patients within 5 years.
“It’s been remarkable to see the evolution in CML and to be part of that transition as a fellow, as faculty, and as leader of some of the trials,” said Cortes, who directs the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University. “I’m the luckiest person in the world.”
In an interview, Cortes talked about his youth in Mexico, his research path, and his close connections to cancer medicine in Latin America.
Q: You grew up in Mexico City. What was your family like?
A: “My father grew up very poor in a small town in Michoacán in the southwest part of Mexico. In Mexico City, he had a tiny grocery store in an old-fashioned market, and we were lower middle class.
One of the things I learned was to work hard. There’s nobody I know who worked as hard as my father. He opened his store every day of the year, [Mexican] Independence Day or New Year’s or Christmas. He worked hard so we could have a better life than he did.
We learned English from a very young age. My elementary school was called Westminster School because he wanted a school where we would learn English.
As for my mother, she stayed with us [at home] and made sure we did our homework and were taken care of. I learned about being honest and dedicating to what you were doing.”
Q: You trained at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Health Sciences and Nutrition in Mexico City. Then what happened?
A: “Through encouragement by my dermatologist older brother and a mentor at the institution where I was training as a hematologist, I decided to come to the United States.
My initial focus was going to be on coagulation and thrombosis. I came to Houston (Texas) for a fellowship at the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Then I started doing my rotation for the malignant part of the fellowship at MD Anderson Cancer Center [Houston]. One of my first rotations was with Susan M. O’Brien, [MD,] who became my greatest mentor throughout my career. I really enjoyed my rotation. I thought she was great clinically, and she was doing research and teaching. That’s what I wanted for my career.”
Q: What drew you to leukemia specifically?
A: “Dr O’Brien worked in leukemia during my initial rotation, and I really loved it. It was hard work, but it was very inspiring to see the clinical research and the things you could for patients. She had a lot of joy doing that.
I told my program director I’d change and transfer to MD Anderson, and I ended up staying at MD Anderson for 23 years.”
Q: What was leukemia research like in those days?
A: “We didn’t have the understanding of the biology and the new drugs that we have now. When I started in Mexico, we didn’t even have hydroxyurea. What we were doing was much more basic. But still, the field sounded like a great field to be involved with because they were doing so many trials and had an outstanding database.
Because of the influence of Dr [Moshe] Talpaz, [MD,] I started getting very involved with CML. In my initial years as a young faculty, I started working with him on interferon. Then imatinib appeared. I saw even from the phase 1 study how impressive the outcomes were in patients who had no response to anything and were in bad shape.”
Q: What CML medications have you worked on?
A: “I’ve been involved with all of them. Imatinib early on, then I led trials with dasatinib and nilotinib. Then, I led the registration trials of bosutinib and ponatinib. More recently, I was part of the development of asciminib.”
Q: What were some of the biggest challenges in CML research?
A: “We had an opportunity to do a lot of analysis about TKIs [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] when these were new drugs. It was a very steep curve of learning, how to monitor and manage side effects.
Then patients were starting to have resistance to two to three TKIs. Ponatinib came along, and it was an incredibly effective drug. But after it was approved, we started to recognize the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes.
That was unexpected and not something that was known for any TKI. It was a big challenge. The drug was taken off the market for some time, and trials were put on hold by the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration].
We scrambled to understand the mechanism of action. For a year or two, it was a stressful time. But eventually we moved past it, and we learned a lot.”
Q: What sort of work have you done in Latin America?
A: “I’ve always been very close to Latin America. I have many good friends and colleagues there, and I’ve always been interested in working with them.
We’ve done research and studies and created an organization called Latin American Leukemia Net to develop more trials in Latin America. The most rewarding thing has been the educational programs for patients that we’ve done, helping them understand the disease, the treatments, and the goals of treatment.
We’ve conducted a number of programs, and they have been effective, well-attended, and well received. I still work with my colleagues to develop local guidelines and do collaborative research.”
Q: What convinced you to leave MD Anderson for Georgia?
A: “I never thought I’d leave MD Anderson. I had my well-oiled machine of clinical trials, my clinic, and my fellowship program. But the one thing that I wanted to see if I could try next was to develop an institution.
That was the goal here, to take the Georgia Cancer Center to NCI [National Cancer Institute] designation. So, I thought, ‘That’s a nice challenge.’ It may be a good opportunity to try a different aspect of what it means to be an oncologist.
There are days that you think, ‘What am I doing here?’ when you have to deal with budgets and personnel and all these things. But it’s part of the process. It’s still good to know that we have a goal, and that we’re going to make it.
Also, I still see my patients, and I enjoy that I still do some research and mentoring.”
Q: What’s the current state of CML treatment?
A: “Many patients have a pretty much normal life expectancy while [on therapy]. Still, one of the goals of many patients is to stop therapy. But that’s a reality only for a small percentage of patients. How can we make that happen for more patients?”
Q: By stopping therapy, do you mean curing the cancer?
A: “Yes, pretty much. You have a good response, you stop the therapy, and it doesn’t come back.
There are also patients who really don’t do well. We hear about CML being with a disease with such a good outcome, but we have patients for whom nothing works. Is it a matter of [needing] another TKI, or do we need to look at something else?”
Q: What do you see on the horizon?
A: “We are developing new approaches like combination therapies. We’re scratching the surface on that. We need to understand which combinations work, and where and when.
And we can make more efficient uses of the drugs we have now in terms of which ones to use when, the doses, the safety profiles. I think we can do better.”
Cortes disclosed consulting for Amphivena, Astellas, Bio-Path, BioLineRx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda and research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunogen, Jazz, Merus, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Tolero and Trovagene.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
His work has helped transform CML into an often-survivable disease instead of one that took the lives of most patients within 5 years.
“It’s been remarkable to see the evolution in CML and to be part of that transition as a fellow, as faculty, and as leader of some of the trials,” said Cortes, who directs the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University. “I’m the luckiest person in the world.”
In an interview, Cortes talked about his youth in Mexico, his research path, and his close connections to cancer medicine in Latin America.
Q: You grew up in Mexico City. What was your family like?
A: “My father grew up very poor in a small town in Michoacán in the southwest part of Mexico. In Mexico City, he had a tiny grocery store in an old-fashioned market, and we were lower middle class.
One of the things I learned was to work hard. There’s nobody I know who worked as hard as my father. He opened his store every day of the year, [Mexican] Independence Day or New Year’s or Christmas. He worked hard so we could have a better life than he did.
We learned English from a very young age. My elementary school was called Westminster School because he wanted a school where we would learn English.
As for my mother, she stayed with us [at home] and made sure we did our homework and were taken care of. I learned about being honest and dedicating to what you were doing.”
Q: You trained at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Health Sciences and Nutrition in Mexico City. Then what happened?
A: “Through encouragement by my dermatologist older brother and a mentor at the institution where I was training as a hematologist, I decided to come to the United States.
My initial focus was going to be on coagulation and thrombosis. I came to Houston (Texas) for a fellowship at the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Then I started doing my rotation for the malignant part of the fellowship at MD Anderson Cancer Center [Houston]. One of my first rotations was with Susan M. O’Brien, [MD,] who became my greatest mentor throughout my career. I really enjoyed my rotation. I thought she was great clinically, and she was doing research and teaching. That’s what I wanted for my career.”
Q: What drew you to leukemia specifically?
A: “Dr O’Brien worked in leukemia during my initial rotation, and I really loved it. It was hard work, but it was very inspiring to see the clinical research and the things you could for patients. She had a lot of joy doing that.
I told my program director I’d change and transfer to MD Anderson, and I ended up staying at MD Anderson for 23 years.”
Q: What was leukemia research like in those days?
A: “We didn’t have the understanding of the biology and the new drugs that we have now. When I started in Mexico, we didn’t even have hydroxyurea. What we were doing was much more basic. But still, the field sounded like a great field to be involved with because they were doing so many trials and had an outstanding database.
Because of the influence of Dr [Moshe] Talpaz, [MD,] I started getting very involved with CML. In my initial years as a young faculty, I started working with him on interferon. Then imatinib appeared. I saw even from the phase 1 study how impressive the outcomes were in patients who had no response to anything and were in bad shape.”
Q: What CML medications have you worked on?
A: “I’ve been involved with all of them. Imatinib early on, then I led trials with dasatinib and nilotinib. Then, I led the registration trials of bosutinib and ponatinib. More recently, I was part of the development of asciminib.”
Q: What were some of the biggest challenges in CML research?
A: “We had an opportunity to do a lot of analysis about TKIs [tyrosine kinase inhibitors] when these were new drugs. It was a very steep curve of learning, how to monitor and manage side effects.
Then patients were starting to have resistance to two to three TKIs. Ponatinib came along, and it was an incredibly effective drug. But after it was approved, we started to recognize the occurrence of heart attacks and strokes.
That was unexpected and not something that was known for any TKI. It was a big challenge. The drug was taken off the market for some time, and trials were put on hold by the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration].
We scrambled to understand the mechanism of action. For a year or two, it was a stressful time. But eventually we moved past it, and we learned a lot.”
Q: What sort of work have you done in Latin America?
A: “I’ve always been very close to Latin America. I have many good friends and colleagues there, and I’ve always been interested in working with them.
We’ve done research and studies and created an organization called Latin American Leukemia Net to develop more trials in Latin America. The most rewarding thing has been the educational programs for patients that we’ve done, helping them understand the disease, the treatments, and the goals of treatment.
We’ve conducted a number of programs, and they have been effective, well-attended, and well received. I still work with my colleagues to develop local guidelines and do collaborative research.”
Q: What convinced you to leave MD Anderson for Georgia?
A: “I never thought I’d leave MD Anderson. I had my well-oiled machine of clinical trials, my clinic, and my fellowship program. But the one thing that I wanted to see if I could try next was to develop an institution.
That was the goal here, to take the Georgia Cancer Center to NCI [National Cancer Institute] designation. So, I thought, ‘That’s a nice challenge.’ It may be a good opportunity to try a different aspect of what it means to be an oncologist.
There are days that you think, ‘What am I doing here?’ when you have to deal with budgets and personnel and all these things. But it’s part of the process. It’s still good to know that we have a goal, and that we’re going to make it.
Also, I still see my patients, and I enjoy that I still do some research and mentoring.”
Q: What’s the current state of CML treatment?
A: “Many patients have a pretty much normal life expectancy while [on therapy]. Still, one of the goals of many patients is to stop therapy. But that’s a reality only for a small percentage of patients. How can we make that happen for more patients?”
Q: By stopping therapy, do you mean curing the cancer?
A: “Yes, pretty much. You have a good response, you stop the therapy, and it doesn’t come back.
There are also patients who really don’t do well. We hear about CML being with a disease with such a good outcome, but we have patients for whom nothing works. Is it a matter of [needing] another TKI, or do we need to look at something else?”
Q: What do you see on the horizon?
A: “We are developing new approaches like combination therapies. We’re scratching the surface on that. We need to understand which combinations work, and where and when.
And we can make more efficient uses of the drugs we have now in terms of which ones to use when, the doses, the safety profiles. I think we can do better.”
Cortes disclosed consulting for Amphivena, Astellas, Bio-Path, BioLineRx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda and research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunogen, Jazz, Merus, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Tolero and Trovagene.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘No Hint of Benefit’ in Large Colchicine Trial
WASHINGTON —
The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.
For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).
There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.
No Difference
No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).
Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).
Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.
“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.
The OASIS 9 Trial
In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.
The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.
Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.
At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.
In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).
However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).
New Data Challenge Guidelines
Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.
Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.
“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.
The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.
Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.
“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON —
The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.
For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).
There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.
No Difference
No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).
Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).
Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.
“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.
The OASIS 9 Trial
In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.
The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.
Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.
At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.
In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).
However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).
New Data Challenge Guidelines
Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.
Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.
“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.
The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.
Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.
“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON —
The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.
For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).
There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.
No Difference
No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).
Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).
Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.
“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.
The OASIS 9 Trial
In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.
The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.
Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.
At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.
In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).
However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).
New Data Challenge Guidelines
Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.
Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.
“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.
The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.
Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.
“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM TCT 2024
Does Antibiotic Use During Influenza Infection Worsen Lung Immunity?
TOPLINE:
Antibiotic use during influenza infection increases lung eosinophils, impairing immunity against secondary bacterial pneumonia. This study highlights the detrimental effects of antibiotics on lung health during viral infections.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a murine model study to evaluate the impact of antibiotic use during influenza infection on lung immunity. Mice were treated with a broad-spectrum antibiotic cocktail (vancomycin, neomycin, ampicillin, and metronidazole) starting 7 days before influenza infection.
- The study included intranasal infection with influenza virus followed by a secondary challenge with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
- Finally, in sub-study, a total of three cohorts of hospitalized patients were evaluated to correlate eosinophil levels with antibiotic use, systemic inflammation, and outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Antibiotic use during influenza infection impairs lung immunity, leading to increased lung eosinophils and reduced macrophage function.
- The study found that antibiotic treatment during influenza infection caused fungal dysbiosis, driving lung eosinophilia and impairing MRSA clearance.
- The detrimental effects of antibiotics on lung immunity were specific to the two-hit model of influenza followed by MRSA infection in mice.
- In hospitalized patients, eosinophil levels positively correlated with antibiotic use, systemic inflammation, and worsened outcomes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study highlights the pernicious effects of antibiotic use during viral infections and defines a mechanism whereby antibiotics perturb the gut mycobiome and result in lung eosinophilia. In turn, lung eosinophils, via release of MBP-1, suppress alveolar macrophage clearance of bacteria,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Marilia Sanches Santos Rizzo Zuttion, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
LIMITATIONS:
This study’s limitations included the use of a murine model, which may not fully replicate human immune responses. Additionally, the study focused on a specific antibiotic cocktail, and results may vary with different antibiotics. The findings were also specific to the two-hit model of influenza followed by MRSA infection, limiting generalizability to other infections.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Marilia Sanches Santos Rizzo Zuttion received research funding from Pfizer Inc. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
Antibiotic use during influenza infection increases lung eosinophils, impairing immunity against secondary bacterial pneumonia. This study highlights the detrimental effects of antibiotics on lung health during viral infections.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a murine model study to evaluate the impact of antibiotic use during influenza infection on lung immunity. Mice were treated with a broad-spectrum antibiotic cocktail (vancomycin, neomycin, ampicillin, and metronidazole) starting 7 days before influenza infection.
- The study included intranasal infection with influenza virus followed by a secondary challenge with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
- Finally, in sub-study, a total of three cohorts of hospitalized patients were evaluated to correlate eosinophil levels with antibiotic use, systemic inflammation, and outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Antibiotic use during influenza infection impairs lung immunity, leading to increased lung eosinophils and reduced macrophage function.
- The study found that antibiotic treatment during influenza infection caused fungal dysbiosis, driving lung eosinophilia and impairing MRSA clearance.
- The detrimental effects of antibiotics on lung immunity were specific to the two-hit model of influenza followed by MRSA infection in mice.
- In hospitalized patients, eosinophil levels positively correlated with antibiotic use, systemic inflammation, and worsened outcomes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study highlights the pernicious effects of antibiotic use during viral infections and defines a mechanism whereby antibiotics perturb the gut mycobiome and result in lung eosinophilia. In turn, lung eosinophils, via release of MBP-1, suppress alveolar macrophage clearance of bacteria,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Marilia Sanches Santos Rizzo Zuttion, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
LIMITATIONS:
This study’s limitations included the use of a murine model, which may not fully replicate human immune responses. Additionally, the study focused on a specific antibiotic cocktail, and results may vary with different antibiotics. The findings were also specific to the two-hit model of influenza followed by MRSA infection, limiting generalizability to other infections.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Marilia Sanches Santos Rizzo Zuttion received research funding from Pfizer Inc. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created 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.
TOPLINE:
Antibiotic use during influenza infection increases lung eosinophils, impairing immunity against secondary bacterial pneumonia. This study highlights the detrimental effects of antibiotics on lung health during viral infections.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a murine model study to evaluate the impact of antibiotic use during influenza infection on lung immunity. Mice were treated with a broad-spectrum antibiotic cocktail (vancomycin, neomycin, ampicillin, and metronidazole) starting 7 days before influenza infection.
- The study included intranasal infection with influenza virus followed by a secondary challenge with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
- Finally, in sub-study, a total of three cohorts of hospitalized patients were evaluated to correlate eosinophil levels with antibiotic use, systemic inflammation, and outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Antibiotic use during influenza infection impairs lung immunity, leading to increased lung eosinophils and reduced macrophage function.
- The study found that antibiotic treatment during influenza infection caused fungal dysbiosis, driving lung eosinophilia and impairing MRSA clearance.
- The detrimental effects of antibiotics on lung immunity were specific to the two-hit model of influenza followed by MRSA infection in mice.
- In hospitalized patients, eosinophil levels positively correlated with antibiotic use, systemic inflammation, and worsened outcomes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our study highlights the pernicious effects of antibiotic use during viral infections and defines a mechanism whereby antibiotics perturb the gut mycobiome and result in lung eosinophilia. In turn, lung eosinophils, via release of MBP-1, suppress alveolar macrophage clearance of bacteria,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Marilia Sanches Santos Rizzo Zuttion, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
LIMITATIONS:
This study’s limitations included the use of a murine model, which may not fully replicate human immune responses. Additionally, the study focused on a specific antibiotic cocktail, and results may vary with different antibiotics. The findings were also specific to the two-hit model of influenza followed by MRSA infection, limiting generalizability to other infections.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Marilia Sanches Santos Rizzo Zuttion received research funding from Pfizer Inc. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created 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.
Reassuring Data on GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatic Cancer Risk
PHILADELPHIA —
Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications.
“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin.
He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Important Topic
Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.
Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer.
A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.
Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis.
The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.
The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).
Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.
The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.
Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.
The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications.
“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin.
He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Important Topic
Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.
Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer.
A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.
Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis.
The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.
The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).
Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.
The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.
Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.
The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications.
“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin.
He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Important Topic
Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.
Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer.
A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.
Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis.
The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.
The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).
Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.
The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.
Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.
The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
Topical Retinoids a Key Component of Acne Treatment Regimens
LAS VEGAS —
Patients with successfully treated acne typically use an average of 2.53 different medications, Baldwin, director of the Acne Treatment & Research Center, Brooklyn, New York, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference.
“Combination treatment is the name of the game, but how do we convince our patients that what we chose is carefully orchestrated?” she said. “Combination therapy is much more effective, yet we’re always told, ‘keep it simple.’ The trick is to use combination products that have two or three medications in them — fixed combinations and products with excellent vehicles.”
No matter what treatment regimen is recommended for patients with acne, she continued, it should always include a topical retinoid. Tretinoin was the first topical retinoid approved for acne treatment in 1971, followed by adapalene in 1996, tazarotene in 1997, and trifarotene in 2019. According to a review article , topical retinoids inhibit the formation of microcomedones, reduce mature comedones and inflammatory lesions, enhance penetration of other drugs, reduce and prevent scarring, reduce hyperpigmentation, and maintain remission of acne.
More recently, authors of the 2024 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris strongly recommended the use of topical retinoids based on moderate certainty evidence in the medial literature. Strong recommendations are also made for benzoyl peroxide, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline.
Baldwin noted that the benefits of retinoids include their comedolytic and anti-comedogenic properties, their effectiveness in treating inflammatory lesions, and their suitability for long-term maintenance. However, their drawbacks involve the potential for irritancy, which can be concentration- and vehicle-dependent.
Irritancy “maxes out at 1-2 weeks, but the problem is you lose the patient at 2 weeks unless they know it’s coming,” she said, noting that she once heard the 2-week mark characterized as a “crisis of confidence.” Patients “came in with a bunch of pimples, and now they’re red and flaky and burning and stinging [from the retinoid], yet they still have pimples,” Baldwin said. “You really need to talk them through that 2-week mark [or] they’re going to stop the medication.”
To improve retinoid tolerability, Baldwin offered the following tips:
- Use a pea-sized amount for the entire affected area and avoid spot treatments.
- Start with every other day application.
- Moisturize regularly, possibly applying moisturizer before the retinoid.
- Consider switching to a different formulation with an alternative vehicle or retinoid delivery system. Adapalene and tazarotene are the only retinoids that have proven to be stable in the presence of benzoyl peroxide, she said.
- Be persistent. “There is no such thing as a patient who cannot tolerate a retinoid,” said Baldwin, the lead author of a review on the evolution of topical retinoids for acne. “It’s because of a provider who failed to provide a sufficient amount of information to allow the patient to eventually be able to tolerate a retinoid.”
Baldwin also referred to an independent meta-analysis of 221 trials comparing the efficacy of pharmacological therapies for acne in patients of any age, which found that the percentage reduction in total lesion count, compared with placebo, was the highest with oral isotretinoin (mean difference [MD], 48.41; P = 1.00), followed by triple therapy containing a topical antibiotic, a topical retinoid, and benzoyl peroxide (MD, 38.15; P = .95), and by triple therapy containing an oral antibiotic, a topical retinoid, and benzoyl peroxide (MD, 34.83; P = .90).
Baldwin is a former president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society and is the SDPA conference medical director. She disclosed being a speaker, consultant, and/or an advisory board member for Almirall, Arcutis, Bausch, Beiersdorf, Cutera, Galderma, Journey, Kenvue, La Roche-Posay, L’Oreal, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Tarsus Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LAS VEGAS —
Patients with successfully treated acne typically use an average of 2.53 different medications, Baldwin, director of the Acne Treatment & Research Center, Brooklyn, New York, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference.
“Combination treatment is the name of the game, but how do we convince our patients that what we chose is carefully orchestrated?” she said. “Combination therapy is much more effective, yet we’re always told, ‘keep it simple.’ The trick is to use combination products that have two or three medications in them — fixed combinations and products with excellent vehicles.”
No matter what treatment regimen is recommended for patients with acne, she continued, it should always include a topical retinoid. Tretinoin was the first topical retinoid approved for acne treatment in 1971, followed by adapalene in 1996, tazarotene in 1997, and trifarotene in 2019. According to a review article , topical retinoids inhibit the formation of microcomedones, reduce mature comedones and inflammatory lesions, enhance penetration of other drugs, reduce and prevent scarring, reduce hyperpigmentation, and maintain remission of acne.
More recently, authors of the 2024 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris strongly recommended the use of topical retinoids based on moderate certainty evidence in the medial literature. Strong recommendations are also made for benzoyl peroxide, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline.
Baldwin noted that the benefits of retinoids include their comedolytic and anti-comedogenic properties, their effectiveness in treating inflammatory lesions, and their suitability for long-term maintenance. However, their drawbacks involve the potential for irritancy, which can be concentration- and vehicle-dependent.
Irritancy “maxes out at 1-2 weeks, but the problem is you lose the patient at 2 weeks unless they know it’s coming,” she said, noting that she once heard the 2-week mark characterized as a “crisis of confidence.” Patients “came in with a bunch of pimples, and now they’re red and flaky and burning and stinging [from the retinoid], yet they still have pimples,” Baldwin said. “You really need to talk them through that 2-week mark [or] they’re going to stop the medication.”
To improve retinoid tolerability, Baldwin offered the following tips:
- Use a pea-sized amount for the entire affected area and avoid spot treatments.
- Start with every other day application.
- Moisturize regularly, possibly applying moisturizer before the retinoid.
- Consider switching to a different formulation with an alternative vehicle or retinoid delivery system. Adapalene and tazarotene are the only retinoids that have proven to be stable in the presence of benzoyl peroxide, she said.
- Be persistent. “There is no such thing as a patient who cannot tolerate a retinoid,” said Baldwin, the lead author of a review on the evolution of topical retinoids for acne. “It’s because of a provider who failed to provide a sufficient amount of information to allow the patient to eventually be able to tolerate a retinoid.”
Baldwin also referred to an independent meta-analysis of 221 trials comparing the efficacy of pharmacological therapies for acne in patients of any age, which found that the percentage reduction in total lesion count, compared with placebo, was the highest with oral isotretinoin (mean difference [MD], 48.41; P = 1.00), followed by triple therapy containing a topical antibiotic, a topical retinoid, and benzoyl peroxide (MD, 38.15; P = .95), and by triple therapy containing an oral antibiotic, a topical retinoid, and benzoyl peroxide (MD, 34.83; P = .90).
Baldwin is a former president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society and is the SDPA conference medical director. She disclosed being a speaker, consultant, and/or an advisory board member for Almirall, Arcutis, Bausch, Beiersdorf, Cutera, Galderma, Journey, Kenvue, La Roche-Posay, L’Oreal, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Tarsus Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LAS VEGAS —
Patients with successfully treated acne typically use an average of 2.53 different medications, Baldwin, director of the Acne Treatment & Research Center, Brooklyn, New York, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference.
“Combination treatment is the name of the game, but how do we convince our patients that what we chose is carefully orchestrated?” she said. “Combination therapy is much more effective, yet we’re always told, ‘keep it simple.’ The trick is to use combination products that have two or three medications in them — fixed combinations and products with excellent vehicles.”
No matter what treatment regimen is recommended for patients with acne, she continued, it should always include a topical retinoid. Tretinoin was the first topical retinoid approved for acne treatment in 1971, followed by adapalene in 1996, tazarotene in 1997, and trifarotene in 2019. According to a review article , topical retinoids inhibit the formation of microcomedones, reduce mature comedones and inflammatory lesions, enhance penetration of other drugs, reduce and prevent scarring, reduce hyperpigmentation, and maintain remission of acne.
More recently, authors of the 2024 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris strongly recommended the use of topical retinoids based on moderate certainty evidence in the medial literature. Strong recommendations are also made for benzoyl peroxide, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline.
Baldwin noted that the benefits of retinoids include their comedolytic and anti-comedogenic properties, their effectiveness in treating inflammatory lesions, and their suitability for long-term maintenance. However, their drawbacks involve the potential for irritancy, which can be concentration- and vehicle-dependent.
Irritancy “maxes out at 1-2 weeks, but the problem is you lose the patient at 2 weeks unless they know it’s coming,” she said, noting that she once heard the 2-week mark characterized as a “crisis of confidence.” Patients “came in with a bunch of pimples, and now they’re red and flaky and burning and stinging [from the retinoid], yet they still have pimples,” Baldwin said. “You really need to talk them through that 2-week mark [or] they’re going to stop the medication.”
To improve retinoid tolerability, Baldwin offered the following tips:
- Use a pea-sized amount for the entire affected area and avoid spot treatments.
- Start with every other day application.
- Moisturize regularly, possibly applying moisturizer before the retinoid.
- Consider switching to a different formulation with an alternative vehicle or retinoid delivery system. Adapalene and tazarotene are the only retinoids that have proven to be stable in the presence of benzoyl peroxide, she said.
- Be persistent. “There is no such thing as a patient who cannot tolerate a retinoid,” said Baldwin, the lead author of a review on the evolution of topical retinoids for acne. “It’s because of a provider who failed to provide a sufficient amount of information to allow the patient to eventually be able to tolerate a retinoid.”
Baldwin also referred to an independent meta-analysis of 221 trials comparing the efficacy of pharmacological therapies for acne in patients of any age, which found that the percentage reduction in total lesion count, compared with placebo, was the highest with oral isotretinoin (mean difference [MD], 48.41; P = 1.00), followed by triple therapy containing a topical antibiotic, a topical retinoid, and benzoyl peroxide (MD, 38.15; P = .95), and by triple therapy containing an oral antibiotic, a topical retinoid, and benzoyl peroxide (MD, 34.83; P = .90).
Baldwin is a former president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society and is the SDPA conference medical director. She disclosed being a speaker, consultant, and/or an advisory board member for Almirall, Arcutis, Bausch, Beiersdorf, Cutera, Galderma, Journey, Kenvue, La Roche-Posay, L’Oreal, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Tarsus Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SDPA 2024
A New and Early Predictor of Dementia?
, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.
Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.
“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
A Promising Biomarker
An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.
To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).
The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.
Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.
Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.
Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.
After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.
Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.
When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).
Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.
In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.
Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.
In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.
The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention
The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.
To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.
Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.
Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.
Unclear Pathway
Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.
The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.
“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.
The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.
Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.
“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
A Promising Biomarker
An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.
To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).
The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.
Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.
Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.
Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.
After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.
Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.
When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).
Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.
In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.
Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.
In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.
The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention
The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.
To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.
Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.
Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.
Unclear Pathway
Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.
The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.
“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.
The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.
Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.
“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
A Promising Biomarker
An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.
To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).
The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.
Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.
Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.
Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.
After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.
Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.
When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).
Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.
In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.
Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.
In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.
The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention
The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.
To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.
Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.
Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.
Unclear Pathway
Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.
The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.
“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.
The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.