Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A new tool promises to expedite detection of infectious disease, according to researchers from McGill University, Montreal.

The diagnostic platform, called QolorEX, was developed by investigators at the university by combining existing technologies to build a new tool for accurate pathogen detection in less than 15 minutes. The device was tested for several respiratory viruses and bacteria, including the H1N1 influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. It achieved 95% accuracy at identifying COVID-19 and its variants in 48 human saliva samples.

“COVID was something that opened our eyes, and now we have to think more seriously about point-of-care diagnostics,” Sara Mahshid, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical engineering and Canada Research Chair in Nano-Biosensing Devices at McGill University, said in an interview. The technology could become important for a range of medical applications, especially in low-resource areas.

The development was detailed in an article in Nature Nanotechnology.
 

Nonclinical setting

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the need for fast and accurate testing that can be used outside of a clinical setting. The gold-standard diagnostic method is PCR testing, but its accuracy comes with a trade-off. PCR testing involves a lengthy protocol and requires a centralized testing facility.

With QolorEX, the investigators aimed to develop a new test that achieves the accuracy of PCR in an automated tool that can be used outside of a testing facility or hospital setting. Dr. Mahshid noted a particular need for a tool that could be used in congregate settings, such as airports, schools, or restaurants.

The device is compact enough to sit on a tabletop or bench and can be used easily in group settings, according to Dr. Mahshid. In the future, she hopes to further miniaturize the device to make it more scalable for widespread use.

Requiring only a saliva sample, the tool is easy to use. Unlike current COVID-19 rapid tests, which involve several steps, the system is automated and does not require manually mixing reagents. After collecting a sample, a user taps a button in a smartphone or computer application. The device handles the rest.

“We’re not chemists who understand how to mix these solutions,” Dr. Mahshid said. Avoiding those extra steps may reduce the false positives and false negatives caused by user error.
 

Fast results

QolorEX can return results in 13 minutes, like a rapid antigen test does. Like a PCR test, the device uses nucleic acid amplification. But PCR tests typically take much longer. The sample analysis alone takes 1.5-2 hours.

The new test accelerates the reaction by injecting light-excited “hot” electrons from the surface of a nanoplasmonic sensor. The device then uses imaging and a machine learning algorithm to quantify a color transformation that occurs when a pathogen is present.

The fast, reliable results make the system potentially appropriate for use in places such as airports. Previously, passengers had to wait 24 hours for a negative COVID test before boarding a plane. A device such as QolorEX would allow screening on site.

The ability of the tool to distinguish between bacterial and viral infections so quickly is “an application that is both important and extremely difficult to achieve,” according to Nikhil Bhalla, PhD, in a research briefing. Dr. Bhalla is a lecturer in electronic engineering at Ulster University, Belfast, Ireland.

The researchers hope that by delivering results quickly, the device will help reduce the spread of respiratory diseases and possibly save lives.
 

‘Sensitive and specific’

The primary benefit of the tool is its ability to return results quickly while having low false positive and false negative rates, according to Leyla Soleymani, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. “It is hard to come by rapid tests that are both sensitive and specific, compared to PCR,” Dr. Soleymani told this news organization.

Although QolorEX was developed to detect COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, the uses of the device are not limited to the pathogens tested. The tool can be applied to a range of tests that currently use PCR technology. Dr. Mahshid and her team are considering several other applications of the technology, such as analyzing therapeutics for antimicrobial-resistant pathogens prioritized by the World Health Organization. The technology may also have potential for detecting cancer and bacterial infections, Dr. Mahshid said in an interview.

But to Dr. Soleymani, the most exciting application remains its use in diagnosing infectious diseases. She noted, however, that it’s unclear whether the price of the device will be too high for widespread home use. It may be more practical for family physician clinics and other facilities.

Before the device becomes commercially available, more testing is needed to validate the results, which are based on a limited number of samples that were available in a research setting.

The study was supported by the MI4 Emergency COVID-19 Research Funding, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and McGill University. Dr. Mahshid and Dr. Soleymani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool promises to expedite detection of infectious disease, according to researchers from McGill University, Montreal.

The diagnostic platform, called QolorEX, was developed by investigators at the university by combining existing technologies to build a new tool for accurate pathogen detection in less than 15 minutes. The device was tested for several respiratory viruses and bacteria, including the H1N1 influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. It achieved 95% accuracy at identifying COVID-19 and its variants in 48 human saliva samples.

“COVID was something that opened our eyes, and now we have to think more seriously about point-of-care diagnostics,” Sara Mahshid, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical engineering and Canada Research Chair in Nano-Biosensing Devices at McGill University, said in an interview. The technology could become important for a range of medical applications, especially in low-resource areas.

The development was detailed in an article in Nature Nanotechnology.
 

Nonclinical setting

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the need for fast and accurate testing that can be used outside of a clinical setting. The gold-standard diagnostic method is PCR testing, but its accuracy comes with a trade-off. PCR testing involves a lengthy protocol and requires a centralized testing facility.

With QolorEX, the investigators aimed to develop a new test that achieves the accuracy of PCR in an automated tool that can be used outside of a testing facility or hospital setting. Dr. Mahshid noted a particular need for a tool that could be used in congregate settings, such as airports, schools, or restaurants.

The device is compact enough to sit on a tabletop or bench and can be used easily in group settings, according to Dr. Mahshid. In the future, she hopes to further miniaturize the device to make it more scalable for widespread use.

Requiring only a saliva sample, the tool is easy to use. Unlike current COVID-19 rapid tests, which involve several steps, the system is automated and does not require manually mixing reagents. After collecting a sample, a user taps a button in a smartphone or computer application. The device handles the rest.

“We’re not chemists who understand how to mix these solutions,” Dr. Mahshid said. Avoiding those extra steps may reduce the false positives and false negatives caused by user error.
 

Fast results

QolorEX can return results in 13 minutes, like a rapid antigen test does. Like a PCR test, the device uses nucleic acid amplification. But PCR tests typically take much longer. The sample analysis alone takes 1.5-2 hours.

The new test accelerates the reaction by injecting light-excited “hot” electrons from the surface of a nanoplasmonic sensor. The device then uses imaging and a machine learning algorithm to quantify a color transformation that occurs when a pathogen is present.

The fast, reliable results make the system potentially appropriate for use in places such as airports. Previously, passengers had to wait 24 hours for a negative COVID test before boarding a plane. A device such as QolorEX would allow screening on site.

The ability of the tool to distinguish between bacterial and viral infections so quickly is “an application that is both important and extremely difficult to achieve,” according to Nikhil Bhalla, PhD, in a research briefing. Dr. Bhalla is a lecturer in electronic engineering at Ulster University, Belfast, Ireland.

The researchers hope that by delivering results quickly, the device will help reduce the spread of respiratory diseases and possibly save lives.
 

‘Sensitive and specific’

The primary benefit of the tool is its ability to return results quickly while having low false positive and false negative rates, according to Leyla Soleymani, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. “It is hard to come by rapid tests that are both sensitive and specific, compared to PCR,” Dr. Soleymani told this news organization.

Although QolorEX was developed to detect COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, the uses of the device are not limited to the pathogens tested. The tool can be applied to a range of tests that currently use PCR technology. Dr. Mahshid and her team are considering several other applications of the technology, such as analyzing therapeutics for antimicrobial-resistant pathogens prioritized by the World Health Organization. The technology may also have potential for detecting cancer and bacterial infections, Dr. Mahshid said in an interview.

But to Dr. Soleymani, the most exciting application remains its use in diagnosing infectious diseases. She noted, however, that it’s unclear whether the price of the device will be too high for widespread home use. It may be more practical for family physician clinics and other facilities.

Before the device becomes commercially available, more testing is needed to validate the results, which are based on a limited number of samples that were available in a research setting.

The study was supported by the MI4 Emergency COVID-19 Research Funding, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and McGill University. Dr. Mahshid and Dr. Soleymani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool promises to expedite detection of infectious disease, according to researchers from McGill University, Montreal.

The diagnostic platform, called QolorEX, was developed by investigators at the university by combining existing technologies to build a new tool for accurate pathogen detection in less than 15 minutes. The device was tested for several respiratory viruses and bacteria, including the H1N1 influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. It achieved 95% accuracy at identifying COVID-19 and its variants in 48 human saliva samples.

“COVID was something that opened our eyes, and now we have to think more seriously about point-of-care diagnostics,” Sara Mahshid, PhD, assistant professor of biomedical engineering and Canada Research Chair in Nano-Biosensing Devices at McGill University, said in an interview. The technology could become important for a range of medical applications, especially in low-resource areas.

The development was detailed in an article in Nature Nanotechnology.
 

Nonclinical setting

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the need for fast and accurate testing that can be used outside of a clinical setting. The gold-standard diagnostic method is PCR testing, but its accuracy comes with a trade-off. PCR testing involves a lengthy protocol and requires a centralized testing facility.

With QolorEX, the investigators aimed to develop a new test that achieves the accuracy of PCR in an automated tool that can be used outside of a testing facility or hospital setting. Dr. Mahshid noted a particular need for a tool that could be used in congregate settings, such as airports, schools, or restaurants.

The device is compact enough to sit on a tabletop or bench and can be used easily in group settings, according to Dr. Mahshid. In the future, she hopes to further miniaturize the device to make it more scalable for widespread use.

Requiring only a saliva sample, the tool is easy to use. Unlike current COVID-19 rapid tests, which involve several steps, the system is automated and does not require manually mixing reagents. After collecting a sample, a user taps a button in a smartphone or computer application. The device handles the rest.

“We’re not chemists who understand how to mix these solutions,” Dr. Mahshid said. Avoiding those extra steps may reduce the false positives and false negatives caused by user error.
 

Fast results

QolorEX can return results in 13 minutes, like a rapid antigen test does. Like a PCR test, the device uses nucleic acid amplification. But PCR tests typically take much longer. The sample analysis alone takes 1.5-2 hours.

The new test accelerates the reaction by injecting light-excited “hot” electrons from the surface of a nanoplasmonic sensor. The device then uses imaging and a machine learning algorithm to quantify a color transformation that occurs when a pathogen is present.

The fast, reliable results make the system potentially appropriate for use in places such as airports. Previously, passengers had to wait 24 hours for a negative COVID test before boarding a plane. A device such as QolorEX would allow screening on site.

The ability of the tool to distinguish between bacterial and viral infections so quickly is “an application that is both important and extremely difficult to achieve,” according to Nikhil Bhalla, PhD, in a research briefing. Dr. Bhalla is a lecturer in electronic engineering at Ulster University, Belfast, Ireland.

The researchers hope that by delivering results quickly, the device will help reduce the spread of respiratory diseases and possibly save lives.
 

‘Sensitive and specific’

The primary benefit of the tool is its ability to return results quickly while having low false positive and false negative rates, according to Leyla Soleymani, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. “It is hard to come by rapid tests that are both sensitive and specific, compared to PCR,” Dr. Soleymani told this news organization.

Although QolorEX was developed to detect COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, the uses of the device are not limited to the pathogens tested. The tool can be applied to a range of tests that currently use PCR technology. Dr. Mahshid and her team are considering several other applications of the technology, such as analyzing therapeutics for antimicrobial-resistant pathogens prioritized by the World Health Organization. The technology may also have potential for detecting cancer and bacterial infections, Dr. Mahshid said in an interview.

But to Dr. Soleymani, the most exciting application remains its use in diagnosing infectious diseases. She noted, however, that it’s unclear whether the price of the device will be too high for widespread home use. It may be more practical for family physician clinics and other facilities.

Before the device becomes commercially available, more testing is needed to validate the results, which are based on a limited number of samples that were available in a research setting.

The study was supported by the MI4 Emergency COVID-19 Research Funding, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and McGill University. Dr. Mahshid and Dr. Soleymani reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After 100 years of insulin therapy, teplizumab, an immunotherapy for early-stage type 1 diabetes, has been approved for the first time in the United States and has been shown to delay the manifestation of clinical diabetes by 3 years on average. As a prerequisite for the use of the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab, patients must undergo a general screening for type 1 diabetes. Whether this prerequisite makes sense was the subject of hot debate among experts at the Diabetes Congress in Berlin.

Anette-Gabriele Ziegler, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Diabetes Research in Helmholtz Munich, argued that voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes should be included in standard care. “The first immunotherapy that delays type 1 diabetes has been approved in the U.S. for early stage 2. And this early stage can only be identified through prior screening, since no symptoms have manifested by this stage,” she said. This is the only way in which as many people as possible, particularly children, will benefit from the disease-delaying therapy, she added.
 

Two autoantibodies

One biomarker for the early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is evidence of at least two positive islet cell antibodies. In one study of more than 13,000 children who were observed for 20 years, the specificity of these antibodies was 100%. “Every single child with a positive autoantibody test developed type 1 diabetes later on in their life,” Dr. Ziegler said. “Based on the results of this study, the early stages of type 1 diabetes were added to multiple guidelines.”

The early stage of type 1 diabetes is divided into the following three phases, depending on autoantibody detection and the level of glucose metabolism:

• Early stage 1: Two or more islet autoantibodies and normoglycemia.
• Early stage 2: Two or more islet autoantibodies and dysglycemia.
• Early stage 3: Symptoms, hyperglycemia, insulin therapy.

The aim of the ongoing FR1DA study is to ascertain whether the general population could also be screened for type 1 diabetes using this autoantibody. “Since 2015, children of kindergarten and school age have undergone screening, and to date, more than 170,000 have been tested,” said Dr. Ziegler. “At least two autoantibodies were detected in 0.3% of those screened.”
 

Education and care

The families of the children in whom early-stage type 1 diabetes was diagnosed were invited to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), to undergo measurement of hemoglobin A1c, and to take part in training and monitoring. “Education and competent, ongoing care are crucial for the efficacy of the screening,” Dr. Ziegler emphasized.

The OGTT revealed that 85% of the FR1DA children were still in early stage 1, another 11% were in early stage 2, and the remaining 4% were in early stage 3.

“Unfortunately, the 4% could no longer benefit from teplizumab, since the medication is not approved for manifest diabetes,” said Dr. Ziegler. “However, the 11% could receive teplizumab immediately, and then later on, the 85%, when they developed stage 2. Therefore, further observation of the children is also important.”

The speed at which the disease progresses from early stage 1 to early stage 2 can be stratified using IA2 antibodies, the 90-minute OGTT glucose value, and the HbA1c value. With regard to progression to clinical type 1 diabetes (stage 3), it was observed that the progression risk for the FR1DA children was similar to that of international birth cohorts with increased genetic risk. “Of course, there is still no 20-year follow-up like for BABYDIAB, DIPP, and DAISY, but as of yet, the progression rate is practically identical,” said Dr. Ziegler.
 

Dubious benefits?

The advantages of screening for type 1 diabetes would not be limited to potential access to preventive therapies and a smooth transition to insulin therapy at the correct point in time, according to Dr. Ziegler. Participation in the FR1DA study dramatically reduced the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Between 2015 and 2023, the overall rate of ketoacidosis associated with the manifestation of clinical type 1 diabetes was 4.3%. In contrast, the general DKA rate in Germany has remained largely unchanged for the last 2 decades at between 20% and 25%.

In addition, the FR1DA children exhibited better beta cell function and better metabolic function at clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. This finding was observed in a comparison with children with a spontaneous diabetes diagnosis from the DiMelli study. “It is important that there is a lot of data that shows how, in the long term, this is associated with a better morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Ziegler.

Despite the impressive data from the FR1DA study, not all diabetes experts are convinced that a general screening for type 1 diabetes would be beneficial. Beate Karges, MD, PhD, of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the Bethlehem Hospital Stolberg (Germany) and the endocrinology and diabetology department at the University Hospital Aachen (Germany), stressed, “Screening makes sense if the disease is curable in the preclinical phase or if there is a significantly better prognosis in the event of early diagnosis and treatment.”
 

Severe side effects

Even with an early-stage diagnosis, curing type 1 diabetes is impossible. The new anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab merely delays the manifestation of symptoms for 3 years. However, this delay has its price. The summary of product characteristics for teplizumab contains warnings of severe lymphopenia lasting many weeks, cytokine release syndrome, severe infections, and hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, vaccinations may not be administered during teplizumab treatment and therefore must be completed in advance.

“Preventing type 1 diabetes is still not possible, we can only delay it, and the long-term efficacy and safety of this immunotherapy are not clear,” said Dr. Karges. She added that a significant reduction in the DKA rate – as observed in the FR1DA study – may be possible even without screening. This possibility was demonstrated by a model project in Stuttgart, Germany, in which the DKA rate was significantly reduced through education alone.
 

Education reduces ketoacidosis

“The families were given information about the early signs of type 1 diabetes during the education investigation. Through this [education], a reduction in the ketoacidosis rate from 28% to 16% was achieved,” said Dr. Karges. It is also known from studies of familial type 1 diabetes that secondary sufferers in the family only exhibit a DKA rate of 7%. “Through education within the family and awareness campaigns, the DKA rate can be reduced by 40%-65%,” said Dr. Karges.

Dr. Karges also doubts whether starting insulin therapy earlier “at the correct point in time” elicits long-term advantages. Secondary sufferers with familial type 1 diabetes have better HbA1c values in the first few years after diagnosis. “But as they progress beyond 2, towards 10 years, the difference in HbA1c values diminishes,” said Dr. Karges.

Whether the patient has DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis also seems to make little difference in the long term. “There is also no difference in the HbA1c value in the 2-10 years after diagnosis,” said Dr. Karges. “Glycemic control is not permanently improved in the event that treatment is started early,” she concluded.

“Type 1 diabetes can be delayed with an immune intervention, but to do so, we must also accept possible severe side effects in an otherwise healthy child,” she said. On the other hand, type 1 diabetes can be treated well. “With pumps and continuous glucose monitoring, insulin therapy in children and adolescents has become significantly safer and more effective,” she said.
 

New therapeutic options

Whether voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes eventually finds its way into standard care depends on the further development of preventive medications. Dr. Ziegler stressed that future preventive therapy does not need to be limited to the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab.

For example, strategies such as high-dose oral insulin therapy are being investigated. Verapamil, which is used to treat hypertension, is also promising, since with it, beta cells were retained in early stage 3, and it improved their function. The fusion protein abatacept fell short of statistical significance in a recently published study. For Dr. Ziegler, one thing remains true. “The therapy of type 1 diabetes is about to undergo a renaissance.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 100 years of insulin therapy, teplizumab, an immunotherapy for early-stage type 1 diabetes, has been approved for the first time in the United States and has been shown to delay the manifestation of clinical diabetes by 3 years on average. As a prerequisite for the use of the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab, patients must undergo a general screening for type 1 diabetes. Whether this prerequisite makes sense was the subject of hot debate among experts at the Diabetes Congress in Berlin.

Anette-Gabriele Ziegler, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Diabetes Research in Helmholtz Munich, argued that voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes should be included in standard care. “The first immunotherapy that delays type 1 diabetes has been approved in the U.S. for early stage 2. And this early stage can only be identified through prior screening, since no symptoms have manifested by this stage,” she said. This is the only way in which as many people as possible, particularly children, will benefit from the disease-delaying therapy, she added.
 

Two autoantibodies

One biomarker for the early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is evidence of at least two positive islet cell antibodies. In one study of more than 13,000 children who were observed for 20 years, the specificity of these antibodies was 100%. “Every single child with a positive autoantibody test developed type 1 diabetes later on in their life,” Dr. Ziegler said. “Based on the results of this study, the early stages of type 1 diabetes were added to multiple guidelines.”

The early stage of type 1 diabetes is divided into the following three phases, depending on autoantibody detection and the level of glucose metabolism:

• Early stage 1: Two or more islet autoantibodies and normoglycemia.
• Early stage 2: Two or more islet autoantibodies and dysglycemia.
• Early stage 3: Symptoms, hyperglycemia, insulin therapy.

The aim of the ongoing FR1DA study is to ascertain whether the general population could also be screened for type 1 diabetes using this autoantibody. “Since 2015, children of kindergarten and school age have undergone screening, and to date, more than 170,000 have been tested,” said Dr. Ziegler. “At least two autoantibodies were detected in 0.3% of those screened.”
 

Education and care

The families of the children in whom early-stage type 1 diabetes was diagnosed were invited to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), to undergo measurement of hemoglobin A1c, and to take part in training and monitoring. “Education and competent, ongoing care are crucial for the efficacy of the screening,” Dr. Ziegler emphasized.

The OGTT revealed that 85% of the FR1DA children were still in early stage 1, another 11% were in early stage 2, and the remaining 4% were in early stage 3.

“Unfortunately, the 4% could no longer benefit from teplizumab, since the medication is not approved for manifest diabetes,” said Dr. Ziegler. “However, the 11% could receive teplizumab immediately, and then later on, the 85%, when they developed stage 2. Therefore, further observation of the children is also important.”

The speed at which the disease progresses from early stage 1 to early stage 2 can be stratified using IA2 antibodies, the 90-minute OGTT glucose value, and the HbA1c value. With regard to progression to clinical type 1 diabetes (stage 3), it was observed that the progression risk for the FR1DA children was similar to that of international birth cohorts with increased genetic risk. “Of course, there is still no 20-year follow-up like for BABYDIAB, DIPP, and DAISY, but as of yet, the progression rate is practically identical,” said Dr. Ziegler.
 

Dubious benefits?

The advantages of screening for type 1 diabetes would not be limited to potential access to preventive therapies and a smooth transition to insulin therapy at the correct point in time, according to Dr. Ziegler. Participation in the FR1DA study dramatically reduced the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Between 2015 and 2023, the overall rate of ketoacidosis associated with the manifestation of clinical type 1 diabetes was 4.3%. In contrast, the general DKA rate in Germany has remained largely unchanged for the last 2 decades at between 20% and 25%.

In addition, the FR1DA children exhibited better beta cell function and better metabolic function at clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. This finding was observed in a comparison with children with a spontaneous diabetes diagnosis from the DiMelli study. “It is important that there is a lot of data that shows how, in the long term, this is associated with a better morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Ziegler.

Despite the impressive data from the FR1DA study, not all diabetes experts are convinced that a general screening for type 1 diabetes would be beneficial. Beate Karges, MD, PhD, of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the Bethlehem Hospital Stolberg (Germany) and the endocrinology and diabetology department at the University Hospital Aachen (Germany), stressed, “Screening makes sense if the disease is curable in the preclinical phase or if there is a significantly better prognosis in the event of early diagnosis and treatment.”
 

Severe side effects

Even with an early-stage diagnosis, curing type 1 diabetes is impossible. The new anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab merely delays the manifestation of symptoms for 3 years. However, this delay has its price. The summary of product characteristics for teplizumab contains warnings of severe lymphopenia lasting many weeks, cytokine release syndrome, severe infections, and hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, vaccinations may not be administered during teplizumab treatment and therefore must be completed in advance.

“Preventing type 1 diabetes is still not possible, we can only delay it, and the long-term efficacy and safety of this immunotherapy are not clear,” said Dr. Karges. She added that a significant reduction in the DKA rate – as observed in the FR1DA study – may be possible even without screening. This possibility was demonstrated by a model project in Stuttgart, Germany, in which the DKA rate was significantly reduced through education alone.
 

Education reduces ketoacidosis

“The families were given information about the early signs of type 1 diabetes during the education investigation. Through this [education], a reduction in the ketoacidosis rate from 28% to 16% was achieved,” said Dr. Karges. It is also known from studies of familial type 1 diabetes that secondary sufferers in the family only exhibit a DKA rate of 7%. “Through education within the family and awareness campaigns, the DKA rate can be reduced by 40%-65%,” said Dr. Karges.

Dr. Karges also doubts whether starting insulin therapy earlier “at the correct point in time” elicits long-term advantages. Secondary sufferers with familial type 1 diabetes have better HbA1c values in the first few years after diagnosis. “But as they progress beyond 2, towards 10 years, the difference in HbA1c values diminishes,” said Dr. Karges.

Whether the patient has DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis also seems to make little difference in the long term. “There is also no difference in the HbA1c value in the 2-10 years after diagnosis,” said Dr. Karges. “Glycemic control is not permanently improved in the event that treatment is started early,” she concluded.

“Type 1 diabetes can be delayed with an immune intervention, but to do so, we must also accept possible severe side effects in an otherwise healthy child,” she said. On the other hand, type 1 diabetes can be treated well. “With pumps and continuous glucose monitoring, insulin therapy in children and adolescents has become significantly safer and more effective,” she said.
 

New therapeutic options

Whether voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes eventually finds its way into standard care depends on the further development of preventive medications. Dr. Ziegler stressed that future preventive therapy does not need to be limited to the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab.

For example, strategies such as high-dose oral insulin therapy are being investigated. Verapamil, which is used to treat hypertension, is also promising, since with it, beta cells were retained in early stage 3, and it improved their function. The fusion protein abatacept fell short of statistical significance in a recently published study. For Dr. Ziegler, one thing remains true. “The therapy of type 1 diabetes is about to undergo a renaissance.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 100 years of insulin therapy, teplizumab, an immunotherapy for early-stage type 1 diabetes, has been approved for the first time in the United States and has been shown to delay the manifestation of clinical diabetes by 3 years on average. As a prerequisite for the use of the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab, patients must undergo a general screening for type 1 diabetes. Whether this prerequisite makes sense was the subject of hot debate among experts at the Diabetes Congress in Berlin.

Anette-Gabriele Ziegler, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Diabetes Research in Helmholtz Munich, argued that voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes should be included in standard care. “The first immunotherapy that delays type 1 diabetes has been approved in the U.S. for early stage 2. And this early stage can only be identified through prior screening, since no symptoms have manifested by this stage,” she said. This is the only way in which as many people as possible, particularly children, will benefit from the disease-delaying therapy, she added.
 

Two autoantibodies

One biomarker for the early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is evidence of at least two positive islet cell antibodies. In one study of more than 13,000 children who were observed for 20 years, the specificity of these antibodies was 100%. “Every single child with a positive autoantibody test developed type 1 diabetes later on in their life,” Dr. Ziegler said. “Based on the results of this study, the early stages of type 1 diabetes were added to multiple guidelines.”

The early stage of type 1 diabetes is divided into the following three phases, depending on autoantibody detection and the level of glucose metabolism:

• Early stage 1: Two or more islet autoantibodies and normoglycemia.
• Early stage 2: Two or more islet autoantibodies and dysglycemia.
• Early stage 3: Symptoms, hyperglycemia, insulin therapy.

The aim of the ongoing FR1DA study is to ascertain whether the general population could also be screened for type 1 diabetes using this autoantibody. “Since 2015, children of kindergarten and school age have undergone screening, and to date, more than 170,000 have been tested,” said Dr. Ziegler. “At least two autoantibodies were detected in 0.3% of those screened.”
 

Education and care

The families of the children in whom early-stage type 1 diabetes was diagnosed were invited to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), to undergo measurement of hemoglobin A1c, and to take part in training and monitoring. “Education and competent, ongoing care are crucial for the efficacy of the screening,” Dr. Ziegler emphasized.

The OGTT revealed that 85% of the FR1DA children were still in early stage 1, another 11% were in early stage 2, and the remaining 4% were in early stage 3.

“Unfortunately, the 4% could no longer benefit from teplizumab, since the medication is not approved for manifest diabetes,” said Dr. Ziegler. “However, the 11% could receive teplizumab immediately, and then later on, the 85%, when they developed stage 2. Therefore, further observation of the children is also important.”

The speed at which the disease progresses from early stage 1 to early stage 2 can be stratified using IA2 antibodies, the 90-minute OGTT glucose value, and the HbA1c value. With regard to progression to clinical type 1 diabetes (stage 3), it was observed that the progression risk for the FR1DA children was similar to that of international birth cohorts with increased genetic risk. “Of course, there is still no 20-year follow-up like for BABYDIAB, DIPP, and DAISY, but as of yet, the progression rate is practically identical,” said Dr. Ziegler.
 

Dubious benefits?

The advantages of screening for type 1 diabetes would not be limited to potential access to preventive therapies and a smooth transition to insulin therapy at the correct point in time, according to Dr. Ziegler. Participation in the FR1DA study dramatically reduced the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Between 2015 and 2023, the overall rate of ketoacidosis associated with the manifestation of clinical type 1 diabetes was 4.3%. In contrast, the general DKA rate in Germany has remained largely unchanged for the last 2 decades at between 20% and 25%.

In addition, the FR1DA children exhibited better beta cell function and better metabolic function at clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. This finding was observed in a comparison with children with a spontaneous diabetes diagnosis from the DiMelli study. “It is important that there is a lot of data that shows how, in the long term, this is associated with a better morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Ziegler.

Despite the impressive data from the FR1DA study, not all diabetes experts are convinced that a general screening for type 1 diabetes would be beneficial. Beate Karges, MD, PhD, of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the Bethlehem Hospital Stolberg (Germany) and the endocrinology and diabetology department at the University Hospital Aachen (Germany), stressed, “Screening makes sense if the disease is curable in the preclinical phase or if there is a significantly better prognosis in the event of early diagnosis and treatment.”
 

Severe side effects

Even with an early-stage diagnosis, curing type 1 diabetes is impossible. The new anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab merely delays the manifestation of symptoms for 3 years. However, this delay has its price. The summary of product characteristics for teplizumab contains warnings of severe lymphopenia lasting many weeks, cytokine release syndrome, severe infections, and hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, vaccinations may not be administered during teplizumab treatment and therefore must be completed in advance.

“Preventing type 1 diabetes is still not possible, we can only delay it, and the long-term efficacy and safety of this immunotherapy are not clear,” said Dr. Karges. She added that a significant reduction in the DKA rate – as observed in the FR1DA study – may be possible even without screening. This possibility was demonstrated by a model project in Stuttgart, Germany, in which the DKA rate was significantly reduced through education alone.
 

Education reduces ketoacidosis

“The families were given information about the early signs of type 1 diabetes during the education investigation. Through this [education], a reduction in the ketoacidosis rate from 28% to 16% was achieved,” said Dr. Karges. It is also known from studies of familial type 1 diabetes that secondary sufferers in the family only exhibit a DKA rate of 7%. “Through education within the family and awareness campaigns, the DKA rate can be reduced by 40%-65%,” said Dr. Karges.

Dr. Karges also doubts whether starting insulin therapy earlier “at the correct point in time” elicits long-term advantages. Secondary sufferers with familial type 1 diabetes have better HbA1c values in the first few years after diagnosis. “But as they progress beyond 2, towards 10 years, the difference in HbA1c values diminishes,” said Dr. Karges.

Whether the patient has DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis also seems to make little difference in the long term. “There is also no difference in the HbA1c value in the 2-10 years after diagnosis,” said Dr. Karges. “Glycemic control is not permanently improved in the event that treatment is started early,” she concluded.

“Type 1 diabetes can be delayed with an immune intervention, but to do so, we must also accept possible severe side effects in an otherwise healthy child,” she said. On the other hand, type 1 diabetes can be treated well. “With pumps and continuous glucose monitoring, insulin therapy in children and adolescents has become significantly safer and more effective,” she said.
 

New therapeutic options

Whether voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes eventually finds its way into standard care depends on the further development of preventive medications. Dr. Ziegler stressed that future preventive therapy does not need to be limited to the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab.

For example, strategies such as high-dose oral insulin therapy are being investigated. Verapamil, which is used to treat hypertension, is also promising, since with it, beta cells were retained in early stage 3, and it improved their function. The fusion protein abatacept fell short of statistical significance in a recently published study. For Dr. Ziegler, one thing remains true. “The therapy of type 1 diabetes is about to undergo a renaissance.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

State and local health officials around the country are reporting the first cases of West Nile virus of the season in humans and urging people to take action to protect themselves from the mosquito-borne disease.

In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.

According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths. 

Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.

The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.

West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.

Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.

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

State and local health officials around the country are reporting the first cases of West Nile virus of the season in humans and urging people to take action to protect themselves from the mosquito-borne disease.

In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.

According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths. 

Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.

The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.

West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.

Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.

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

State and local health officials around the country are reporting the first cases of West Nile virus of the season in humans and urging people to take action to protect themselves from the mosquito-borne disease.

In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.

According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths. 

Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.

The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.

West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.

Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) and empagliflozin combined with metformin (Synjardy, BI) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children aged 10 years and older.

This approval represents only the second oral treatment option for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes after metformin; the latter appears to be less effective for pediatric patients than for adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists are also available for youth with type 2 diabetes. These include daily liraglutide (Victoza) and once-weekly extended-release exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise).

Jardiance has been approved for adults with type 2 diabetes since 2014, and Synjardy has been approved since 2015.

“Compared to adults, children with type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options, even though the disease and symptom onset generally progress more rapidly in children,” said Michelle Carey, MD, MPH.

“Today’s approvals provide much-needed additional treatment options for children with type 2 diabetes,” added Dr. Carey, associate director for therapeutic review for the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
 

Type 2 diabetes rising exponentially in children, mainly non-Whites

Type 2 diabetes is rising exponentially in children and adolescents in the United States.

Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show that the incidence of type 2 diabetes among youth rose by about 5% per year between 2002 and 2015, and  it continues to rise.

A more recent study found that a doubling of cases occurred during the pandemic, with youth often presenting with more severe disease. The majority of cases are among non-White racial groups.

Safety and efficacy data for empagliflozin for children came from the Diabetes Study of Linagliptin and Empagliflozin in Children and Adolescents (DINAMO) trial. That trial included 157 patients aged 10-17 years with A1c of 7% or above. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg daily, linagliptin (a DPP-4 inhibitor) 5 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. Over 90% were also taking metformin, 40% in combination with insulin. All patients were given diet and exercise advice.

At week 26, the children treated with empagliflozin showed an average 0.2 percentage point decrease in A1c, compared with a 0.7-point increase among those taking placebo. Use of empagliflozin was also associated with lower fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo.

Side effects were similar to those seen in adults except for a higher risk of hypoglycemia, regardless of other glucose-lowering therapies that were being taken.

Reduction in A1c for participants treated with linagliptin was not statistically significant in comparison with placebo. There was a numerical reduction of 0.34% (P = .2935).

“Across the lifespan, we know that people living with type 2 diabetes have a high risk for many diabetes complications, so it’s important to recognize and treat diabetes early in its course,” Lori Laffel, MD, lead investigator of the DINAMO study, said in a press release from BI.

“These findings are particularly important given the need for more therapeutic options, especially oral agents, to manage type 2 diabetes in young people as, to date, metformin [has been] the only globally available oral treatment for youth,” added Dr. Laffel, chief of the pediatric, adolescent, and young adult section at the Joslin Diabetes Center and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) and empagliflozin combined with metformin (Synjardy, BI) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children aged 10 years and older.

This approval represents only the second oral treatment option for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes after metformin; the latter appears to be less effective for pediatric patients than for adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists are also available for youth with type 2 diabetes. These include daily liraglutide (Victoza) and once-weekly extended-release exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise).

Jardiance has been approved for adults with type 2 diabetes since 2014, and Synjardy has been approved since 2015.

“Compared to adults, children with type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options, even though the disease and symptom onset generally progress more rapidly in children,” said Michelle Carey, MD, MPH.

“Today’s approvals provide much-needed additional treatment options for children with type 2 diabetes,” added Dr. Carey, associate director for therapeutic review for the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
 

Type 2 diabetes rising exponentially in children, mainly non-Whites

Type 2 diabetes is rising exponentially in children and adolescents in the United States.

Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show that the incidence of type 2 diabetes among youth rose by about 5% per year between 2002 and 2015, and  it continues to rise.

A more recent study found that a doubling of cases occurred during the pandemic, with youth often presenting with more severe disease. The majority of cases are among non-White racial groups.

Safety and efficacy data for empagliflozin for children came from the Diabetes Study of Linagliptin and Empagliflozin in Children and Adolescents (DINAMO) trial. That trial included 157 patients aged 10-17 years with A1c of 7% or above. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg daily, linagliptin (a DPP-4 inhibitor) 5 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. Over 90% were also taking metformin, 40% in combination with insulin. All patients were given diet and exercise advice.

At week 26, the children treated with empagliflozin showed an average 0.2 percentage point decrease in A1c, compared with a 0.7-point increase among those taking placebo. Use of empagliflozin was also associated with lower fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo.

Side effects were similar to those seen in adults except for a higher risk of hypoglycemia, regardless of other glucose-lowering therapies that were being taken.

Reduction in A1c for participants treated with linagliptin was not statistically significant in comparison with placebo. There was a numerical reduction of 0.34% (P = .2935).

“Across the lifespan, we know that people living with type 2 diabetes have a high risk for many diabetes complications, so it’s important to recognize and treat diabetes early in its course,” Lori Laffel, MD, lead investigator of the DINAMO study, said in a press release from BI.

“These findings are particularly important given the need for more therapeutic options, especially oral agents, to manage type 2 diabetes in young people as, to date, metformin [has been] the only globally available oral treatment for youth,” added Dr. Laffel, chief of the pediatric, adolescent, and young adult section at the Joslin Diabetes Center and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) and empagliflozin combined with metformin (Synjardy, BI) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children aged 10 years and older.

This approval represents only the second oral treatment option for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes after metformin; the latter appears to be less effective for pediatric patients than for adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists are also available for youth with type 2 diabetes. These include daily liraglutide (Victoza) and once-weekly extended-release exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise).

Jardiance has been approved for adults with type 2 diabetes since 2014, and Synjardy has been approved since 2015.

“Compared to adults, children with type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options, even though the disease and symptom onset generally progress more rapidly in children,” said Michelle Carey, MD, MPH.

“Today’s approvals provide much-needed additional treatment options for children with type 2 diabetes,” added Dr. Carey, associate director for therapeutic review for the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
 

Type 2 diabetes rising exponentially in children, mainly non-Whites

Type 2 diabetes is rising exponentially in children and adolescents in the United States.

Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show that the incidence of type 2 diabetes among youth rose by about 5% per year between 2002 and 2015, and  it continues to rise.

A more recent study found that a doubling of cases occurred during the pandemic, with youth often presenting with more severe disease. The majority of cases are among non-White racial groups.

Safety and efficacy data for empagliflozin for children came from the Diabetes Study of Linagliptin and Empagliflozin in Children and Adolescents (DINAMO) trial. That trial included 157 patients aged 10-17 years with A1c of 7% or above. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg daily, linagliptin (a DPP-4 inhibitor) 5 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. Over 90% were also taking metformin, 40% in combination with insulin. All patients were given diet and exercise advice.

At week 26, the children treated with empagliflozin showed an average 0.2 percentage point decrease in A1c, compared with a 0.7-point increase among those taking placebo. Use of empagliflozin was also associated with lower fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo.

Side effects were similar to those seen in adults except for a higher risk of hypoglycemia, regardless of other glucose-lowering therapies that were being taken.

Reduction in A1c for participants treated with linagliptin was not statistically significant in comparison with placebo. There was a numerical reduction of 0.34% (P = .2935).

“Across the lifespan, we know that people living with type 2 diabetes have a high risk for many diabetes complications, so it’s important to recognize and treat diabetes early in its course,” Lori Laffel, MD, lead investigator of the DINAMO study, said in a press release from BI.

“These findings are particularly important given the need for more therapeutic options, especially oral agents, to manage type 2 diabetes in young people as, to date, metformin [has been] the only globally available oral treatment for youth,” added Dr. Laffel, chief of the pediatric, adolescent, and young adult section at the Joslin Diabetes Center and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

Only 12.8% of eligible adults get CT screening for lung cancer, despite recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kristin G. Maki, PhD, with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, led a team that estimated lung cancer screening (LCS) from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in four states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).

“Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority,” the authors wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer in the United States and smoking accounts for approximately 90% of cases.
 

Screening much higher for other cancers

The authors pointed out that screening rates for eligible people are much higher for other cancers. Melzer and colleagues wrote in a 2021 editorial that breast and colon cancer screening rates are near 70% “despite combined annual death rates less than two-thirds that of lung cancer.”

The USPSTF updated its recommendations for lung cancer screening in March 2021.

Eligibility now includes anyone aged between 50 and 80 years who has smoked at least 20 pack-years and either still smokes or quit within the last 15 years.

The researchers found that, when comparing screening by health status, the highest odds for screening were seen in those who reported they were in poor health, which is concerning, the authors note, because those patients may not be healthy enough to benefit from treatment for their lung cancer.

The odds ratio for getting screening was 2.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.77) times higher than that of the reference group, which reported excellent health.
 

Rates differ by state

Consistent with previous studies, this analysis found that screening rates differed by state. Their analysis, for example, showed a higher likelihood of screening for respondents in Rhode Island, compared with Maine (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67; P = .03).

Patients who reported having a primary health professional were more than five times more likely to undergo screening, compared with those without one (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.19-26.49).

The authors said their results also highlight the need for Medicare coverage for screening as those with public insurance had lower odds of screening than those with private insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56).

Neelima Navuluri, MD, assistant professor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care at Duke University and the Duke Global Health Institute, both in Durham, N.C., pointed out that the study highlights age, smoking status, and health care access as key factors associated with lack of uptake.
 

Work needed on all levels

Dr. Navuluri said in an interview that multifaceted patient-, provider- and system-level interventions are needed to improve screening rates.

“For example, we need more community engagement to increase knowledge and awareness of eligibility for lung cancer screening,” she said.

She highlighted the need for interventions around improving and streamlining shared decision-making conversations about screening (a CMS requirement that does not exist for other cancer screening).

Emphasis is needed on younger age groups, people who currently smoke, and communities of color as well as policy to improve insurance coverage of screening, she said.

Dr. Navuluri, who also works with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was lead author on a study published in JAMA Network Open on racial disparities in screening among veterans.

“We demonstrate similar findings related to age, smoking status, and poor health status,” she said. “We discuss the need for more qualitative studies to better understand the role of these factors as well as implementation studies to assess effectiveness of various interventions to improve disparities in lung cancer screening rates.”

“Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening,” they wrote.

One coauthor is supported by the cancer prevention and research training program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Navuluri receives funding from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for work on lung cancer screening.

Only 12.8% of eligible adults get CT screening for lung cancer, despite recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kristin G. Maki, PhD, with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, led a team that estimated lung cancer screening (LCS) from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in four states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).

“Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority,” the authors wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer in the United States and smoking accounts for approximately 90% of cases.
 

Screening much higher for other cancers

The authors pointed out that screening rates for eligible people are much higher for other cancers. Melzer and colleagues wrote in a 2021 editorial that breast and colon cancer screening rates are near 70% “despite combined annual death rates less than two-thirds that of lung cancer.”

The USPSTF updated its recommendations for lung cancer screening in March 2021.

Eligibility now includes anyone aged between 50 and 80 years who has smoked at least 20 pack-years and either still smokes or quit within the last 15 years.

The researchers found that, when comparing screening by health status, the highest odds for screening were seen in those who reported they were in poor health, which is concerning, the authors note, because those patients may not be healthy enough to benefit from treatment for their lung cancer.

The odds ratio for getting screening was 2.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.77) times higher than that of the reference group, which reported excellent health.
 

Rates differ by state

Consistent with previous studies, this analysis found that screening rates differed by state. Their analysis, for example, showed a higher likelihood of screening for respondents in Rhode Island, compared with Maine (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67; P = .03).

Patients who reported having a primary health professional were more than five times more likely to undergo screening, compared with those without one (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.19-26.49).

The authors said their results also highlight the need for Medicare coverage for screening as those with public insurance had lower odds of screening than those with private insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56).

Neelima Navuluri, MD, assistant professor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care at Duke University and the Duke Global Health Institute, both in Durham, N.C., pointed out that the study highlights age, smoking status, and health care access as key factors associated with lack of uptake.
 

Work needed on all levels

Dr. Navuluri said in an interview that multifaceted patient-, provider- and system-level interventions are needed to improve screening rates.

“For example, we need more community engagement to increase knowledge and awareness of eligibility for lung cancer screening,” she said.

She highlighted the need for interventions around improving and streamlining shared decision-making conversations about screening (a CMS requirement that does not exist for other cancer screening).

Emphasis is needed on younger age groups, people who currently smoke, and communities of color as well as policy to improve insurance coverage of screening, she said.

Dr. Navuluri, who also works with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was lead author on a study published in JAMA Network Open on racial disparities in screening among veterans.

“We demonstrate similar findings related to age, smoking status, and poor health status,” she said. “We discuss the need for more qualitative studies to better understand the role of these factors as well as implementation studies to assess effectiveness of various interventions to improve disparities in lung cancer screening rates.”

“Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening,” they wrote.

One coauthor is supported by the cancer prevention and research training program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Navuluri receives funding from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for work on lung cancer screening.

Only 12.8% of eligible adults get CT screening for lung cancer, despite recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kristin G. Maki, PhD, with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, led a team that estimated lung cancer screening (LCS) from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in four states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).

“Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority,” the authors wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer in the United States and smoking accounts for approximately 90% of cases.
 

Screening much higher for other cancers

The authors pointed out that screening rates for eligible people are much higher for other cancers. Melzer and colleagues wrote in a 2021 editorial that breast and colon cancer screening rates are near 70% “despite combined annual death rates less than two-thirds that of lung cancer.”

The USPSTF updated its recommendations for lung cancer screening in March 2021.

Eligibility now includes anyone aged between 50 and 80 years who has smoked at least 20 pack-years and either still smokes or quit within the last 15 years.

The researchers found that, when comparing screening by health status, the highest odds for screening were seen in those who reported they were in poor health, which is concerning, the authors note, because those patients may not be healthy enough to benefit from treatment for their lung cancer.

The odds ratio for getting screening was 2.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.77) times higher than that of the reference group, which reported excellent health.
 

Rates differ by state

Consistent with previous studies, this analysis found that screening rates differed by state. Their analysis, for example, showed a higher likelihood of screening for respondents in Rhode Island, compared with Maine (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67; P = .03).

Patients who reported having a primary health professional were more than five times more likely to undergo screening, compared with those without one (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.19-26.49).

The authors said their results also highlight the need for Medicare coverage for screening as those with public insurance had lower odds of screening than those with private insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56).

Neelima Navuluri, MD, assistant professor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care at Duke University and the Duke Global Health Institute, both in Durham, N.C., pointed out that the study highlights age, smoking status, and health care access as key factors associated with lack of uptake.
 

Work needed on all levels

Dr. Navuluri said in an interview that multifaceted patient-, provider- and system-level interventions are needed to improve screening rates.

“For example, we need more community engagement to increase knowledge and awareness of eligibility for lung cancer screening,” she said.

She highlighted the need for interventions around improving and streamlining shared decision-making conversations about screening (a CMS requirement that does not exist for other cancer screening).

Emphasis is needed on younger age groups, people who currently smoke, and communities of color as well as policy to improve insurance coverage of screening, she said.

Dr. Navuluri, who also works with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was lead author on a study published in JAMA Network Open on racial disparities in screening among veterans.

“We demonstrate similar findings related to age, smoking status, and poor health status,” she said. “We discuss the need for more qualitative studies to better understand the role of these factors as well as implementation studies to assess effectiveness of various interventions to improve disparities in lung cancer screening rates.”

“Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening,” they wrote.

One coauthor is supported by the cancer prevention and research training program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Navuluri receives funding from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for work on lung cancer screening.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in adults.

In line with draft recommendations, the task force for the first time has endorsed screening for anxiety disorders in all adults younger than age 65 without recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in this population has a moderate net benefit. There currently is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for anxiety disorders in adults 65 and older, the task force said.

The USPSTF final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries were published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as on the task force website.
 

Jury out on screening for suicide risk

The task force continues to recommend screening all adults for depression. This “B” recommendation reflects moderate-certainty evidence that screening for major depression in adults has a moderate net benefit.

However, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in all adults. Therefore, the task issued an “I” statement, indicating that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined at present.

“We are urgently calling for more research to determine the effectiveness of screening all adults for suicide risk and screening adults 65 and older for anxiety disorders,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in a statement.

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that a positive screen result for anxiety “should be immediately followed with clinical evaluation for suicidality”.

Murray Stein, MD, MPH, and Linda Hill, MD, MPH, both with University of California, San Diego, also noted that a positive screen for anxiety could be indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians should “be prepared to follow up with requisite questions about traumatic experiences that will be needed to home in on a diagnosis of PTSD that may require additional follow-up, referral, or both.

“Anxiety disorders can be distressing and disabling, and appropriate recognition and treatment can be life-altering and, in some cases, lifesaving, for patients,” Dr. Stein and Dr. Hill pointed out.

Effective, evidence-based psychological and pharmacologic treatments for anxiety disorders are available, they added. But the recommendation to routinely screen for anxiety disorder “must be accompanied by the recognition that there are too few mental health specialists available to manage the care of all patients with anxiety disorders, and even fewer who provide services for low-income and non-English-speaking populations,” they wrote.

This research report received no commercial funding. Disclosures for task force members and editorial writers are listed with the original articles.
 

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in adults.

In line with draft recommendations, the task force for the first time has endorsed screening for anxiety disorders in all adults younger than age 65 without recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in this population has a moderate net benefit. There currently is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for anxiety disorders in adults 65 and older, the task force said.

The USPSTF final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries were published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as on the task force website.
 

Jury out on screening for suicide risk

The task force continues to recommend screening all adults for depression. This “B” recommendation reflects moderate-certainty evidence that screening for major depression in adults has a moderate net benefit.

However, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in all adults. Therefore, the task issued an “I” statement, indicating that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined at present.

“We are urgently calling for more research to determine the effectiveness of screening all adults for suicide risk and screening adults 65 and older for anxiety disorders,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in a statement.

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that a positive screen result for anxiety “should be immediately followed with clinical evaluation for suicidality”.

Murray Stein, MD, MPH, and Linda Hill, MD, MPH, both with University of California, San Diego, also noted that a positive screen for anxiety could be indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians should “be prepared to follow up with requisite questions about traumatic experiences that will be needed to home in on a diagnosis of PTSD that may require additional follow-up, referral, or both.

“Anxiety disorders can be distressing and disabling, and appropriate recognition and treatment can be life-altering and, in some cases, lifesaving, for patients,” Dr. Stein and Dr. Hill pointed out.

Effective, evidence-based psychological and pharmacologic treatments for anxiety disorders are available, they added. But the recommendation to routinely screen for anxiety disorder “must be accompanied by the recognition that there are too few mental health specialists available to manage the care of all patients with anxiety disorders, and even fewer who provide services for low-income and non-English-speaking populations,” they wrote.

This research report received no commercial funding. Disclosures for task force members and editorial writers are listed with the original articles.
 

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in adults.

In line with draft recommendations, the task force for the first time has endorsed screening for anxiety disorders in all adults younger than age 65 without recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in this population has a moderate net benefit. There currently is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for anxiety disorders in adults 65 and older, the task force said.

The USPSTF final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries were published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as on the task force website.
 

Jury out on screening for suicide risk

The task force continues to recommend screening all adults for depression. This “B” recommendation reflects moderate-certainty evidence that screening for major depression in adults has a moderate net benefit.

However, there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in all adults. Therefore, the task issued an “I” statement, indicating that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined at present.

“We are urgently calling for more research to determine the effectiveness of screening all adults for suicide risk and screening adults 65 and older for anxiety disorders,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, founding director of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in a statement.

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that a positive screen result for anxiety “should be immediately followed with clinical evaluation for suicidality”.

Murray Stein, MD, MPH, and Linda Hill, MD, MPH, both with University of California, San Diego, also noted that a positive screen for anxiety could be indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and clinicians should “be prepared to follow up with requisite questions about traumatic experiences that will be needed to home in on a diagnosis of PTSD that may require additional follow-up, referral, or both.

“Anxiety disorders can be distressing and disabling, and appropriate recognition and treatment can be life-altering and, in some cases, lifesaving, for patients,” Dr. Stein and Dr. Hill pointed out.

Effective, evidence-based psychological and pharmacologic treatments for anxiety disorders are available, they added. But the recommendation to routinely screen for anxiety disorder “must be accompanied by the recognition that there are too few mental health specialists available to manage the care of all patients with anxiety disorders, and even fewer who provide services for low-income and non-English-speaking populations,” they wrote.

This research report received no commercial funding. Disclosures for task force members and editorial writers are listed with the original articles.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

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

Older people who take daily low-dose aspirin have at 20% higher risk of developing anemia even without having already had a major bleeding event, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.

In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.

“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”

Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.

Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.

About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.

The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.

Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.

“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”

The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.

The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.

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

Older people who take daily low-dose aspirin have at 20% higher risk of developing anemia even without having already had a major bleeding event, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.

In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.

“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”

Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.

Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.

About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.

The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.

Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.

“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”

The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.

The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.

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

Older people who take daily low-dose aspirin have at 20% higher risk of developing anemia even without having already had a major bleeding event, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.

In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.

“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”

Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.

Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.

About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.

The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.

Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.

“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”

The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.

The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.

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

Semaglutide and related drugs for weight loss have co-opted bariatric medicine in recent months. They have also raised serious questions for hospital-based clinicians who wonder whether the drugs may pose risks to surgery patients undergoing anesthesia.

Holding Ozempic (semaglutide) before elective surgery – and if so, for how long – remains largely a judgment call at this point. Official guidance on best practices has not yet caught up to surging popularity of this and other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.

Ozempic is indicated for treating type 2 diabetes but also is prescribed off-label for weight loss. Other GLP-1 agents from Novo Nordisk, Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) injections, are Food and Drug Administration–approved for weight loss. These medications work by decreasing hunger and lowering how much people eat. Semaglutide also is available as a once-daily tablet for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus).

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has been working on guidance on the drugs. “It’s a really hot issue now. We are getting emails from our members looking for guidance,” ASA president Michael Champeau, MD, said in an interview.

But despite the interest in how the medications might affect surgery patients and interact with anesthesia, relatively little evidence exists in the literature beyond case studies. So the society is not issuing official recommendations at this point.

“We’re going to just be calling it ‘guidance’ for right now because of the paucity of the scientific literature,” said Dr. Champeau, adjunct clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s probably not going to have words like ‘must; it will probably have words like ‘should’ or ‘should consider.’ “

The ASA guidance could be out in written form soon, Dr. Champeau added.

Meanwhile, whether physicians should advise stopping these medications 24 hours, 48 hours, or up to 2 weeks before surgery remains unknown.

In search of some consensus, John Shields, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Davie Medical Center in Bermuda Run, N.C., asked colleagues on #MedTwitter: “Anyone have guidelines for ozempic around time of surgery? – holding med? – how long NPO?”

Because a full stomach can interfere with anesthesia, clinicians often advise people to stop eating and drinking 12-24 hours before elective procedures (NPO). In the case of once-weekly GLP-1 injections, which can slow gastric emptying, the optimal timeframe remains an open question. The main concern is aspiration, where a patient actively vomits while under anesthesia or their stomach contents passively come back up.

Dr. Shields’ Twitter post garnered significant reaction and comments. Within 4 days, the post was retweeted 30 times and received 72 replies and comments. Dr. Shields noted the general consensus was to hold semaglutide for 1-2 weeks before a procedure. Other suggestions included recommending a liquid diet only for 24-48 hours before surgery, recommending an NPO protocol 24-36 hours in advance, or adjusting the weekly injection so the last dose is taken 5-6 days before surgery.

Anesthesiologist Cliff Gevirtz, MD, has encountered only a few surgical patients so far taking a GLP-1 for weight loss. “And thankfully no aspiration,” added Dr. Gevirtz, clinical director of office-based ambulatory anesthesia services at Somnia Anesthesia in Harrison, N.Y.

To minimize risk, some physicians will perform an ultrasound scan to assess the contents of the stomach. If surgery is elective in a patient with a full stomach, the procedure can get postponed. Another option is to proceed with the case but treat the patient as anesthesiologists approach an emergency procedure. To be safe, many will treat the case as if the patient has a full stomach.

Dr. Gevirtz said he would treat the patient as a ‘full stomach’ and perform a rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure. He would then extubate the patient once laryngeal reflexes return.

A rapid-sequence induction involves giving the medicine that makes a patient go to sleep, giving another medicine that paralyzes them quickly, then inserting a breathing tube – all within about 30 seconds. Cricoid pressure involves pushing on the neck during intubation to try to seal off the top of the esophagus and again minimize the chances of food coming back up.

Giving metoclopramide 30 minutes before surgery is another option, Dr. Gevirtz said. Metoclopramide can hasten the emptying of stomach contents. Administration in advance is important because waiting for the drug to work can prolong time in the operating room.

Is holding semaglutide before surgery a relevant clinical question? “Yes, very much so,” said Ronnie Fass, MD, division director of gastroenterology and hepatology and the medical director of the Digestive Health Center at The MetroHealth System in Cleveland.

Dr. Fass recommended different strategies based on the semaglutide indication. Currently, clinicians at MetroHealth instruct patients to discontinue diabetic medications the day of surgery. For those who take semaglutide for diabetes, and because the medication is taken once a week, “there is growing discussion among surgeons that the medication should not be stopped prior to surgery. This is to ensure that patients’ diabetes is well controlled before and during surgery,” Dr. Fass said.

In patients taking semaglutide for weight loss only, “there is no clear answer at this point,” he said.

Dr. Fass said the question is complicated by the fact that the medication is taken once a week. “It brings up important questions about the use of the medication during surgery, which may increase the likelihood of side effects in general and for certain types of surgery. Personally, if a patient is taking [semaglutide] for weight loss only, I would consider stopping the medication before surgery.”

The ASA was able to act quickly because it already had an expert task force review how long people should fast before surgery last year – before the explosion in popularity of the GLP-1 agonists.

Although it is still a work in progress, Dr. Champeau offered “a peek” at the recommendations. “The guidance is going to look at how far in advance the drugs should be stopped, rather than looking at making people fast even longer” before surgery, he said. “There’s just no data on that latter question.”

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

Semaglutide and related drugs for weight loss have co-opted bariatric medicine in recent months. They have also raised serious questions for hospital-based clinicians who wonder whether the drugs may pose risks to surgery patients undergoing anesthesia.

Holding Ozempic (semaglutide) before elective surgery – and if so, for how long – remains largely a judgment call at this point. Official guidance on best practices has not yet caught up to surging popularity of this and other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.

Ozempic is indicated for treating type 2 diabetes but also is prescribed off-label for weight loss. Other GLP-1 agents from Novo Nordisk, Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) injections, are Food and Drug Administration–approved for weight loss. These medications work by decreasing hunger and lowering how much people eat. Semaglutide also is available as a once-daily tablet for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus).

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has been working on guidance on the drugs. “It’s a really hot issue now. We are getting emails from our members looking for guidance,” ASA president Michael Champeau, MD, said in an interview.

But despite the interest in how the medications might affect surgery patients and interact with anesthesia, relatively little evidence exists in the literature beyond case studies. So the society is not issuing official recommendations at this point.

“We’re going to just be calling it ‘guidance’ for right now because of the paucity of the scientific literature,” said Dr. Champeau, adjunct clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s probably not going to have words like ‘must; it will probably have words like ‘should’ or ‘should consider.’ “

The ASA guidance could be out in written form soon, Dr. Champeau added.

Meanwhile, whether physicians should advise stopping these medications 24 hours, 48 hours, or up to 2 weeks before surgery remains unknown.

In search of some consensus, John Shields, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Davie Medical Center in Bermuda Run, N.C., asked colleagues on #MedTwitter: “Anyone have guidelines for ozempic around time of surgery? – holding med? – how long NPO?”

Because a full stomach can interfere with anesthesia, clinicians often advise people to stop eating and drinking 12-24 hours before elective procedures (NPO). In the case of once-weekly GLP-1 injections, which can slow gastric emptying, the optimal timeframe remains an open question. The main concern is aspiration, where a patient actively vomits while under anesthesia or their stomach contents passively come back up.

Dr. Shields’ Twitter post garnered significant reaction and comments. Within 4 days, the post was retweeted 30 times and received 72 replies and comments. Dr. Shields noted the general consensus was to hold semaglutide for 1-2 weeks before a procedure. Other suggestions included recommending a liquid diet only for 24-48 hours before surgery, recommending an NPO protocol 24-36 hours in advance, or adjusting the weekly injection so the last dose is taken 5-6 days before surgery.

Anesthesiologist Cliff Gevirtz, MD, has encountered only a few surgical patients so far taking a GLP-1 for weight loss. “And thankfully no aspiration,” added Dr. Gevirtz, clinical director of office-based ambulatory anesthesia services at Somnia Anesthesia in Harrison, N.Y.

To minimize risk, some physicians will perform an ultrasound scan to assess the contents of the stomach. If surgery is elective in a patient with a full stomach, the procedure can get postponed. Another option is to proceed with the case but treat the patient as anesthesiologists approach an emergency procedure. To be safe, many will treat the case as if the patient has a full stomach.

Dr. Gevirtz said he would treat the patient as a ‘full stomach’ and perform a rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure. He would then extubate the patient once laryngeal reflexes return.

A rapid-sequence induction involves giving the medicine that makes a patient go to sleep, giving another medicine that paralyzes them quickly, then inserting a breathing tube – all within about 30 seconds. Cricoid pressure involves pushing on the neck during intubation to try to seal off the top of the esophagus and again minimize the chances of food coming back up.

Giving metoclopramide 30 minutes before surgery is another option, Dr. Gevirtz said. Metoclopramide can hasten the emptying of stomach contents. Administration in advance is important because waiting for the drug to work can prolong time in the operating room.

Is holding semaglutide before surgery a relevant clinical question? “Yes, very much so,” said Ronnie Fass, MD, division director of gastroenterology and hepatology and the medical director of the Digestive Health Center at The MetroHealth System in Cleveland.

Dr. Fass recommended different strategies based on the semaglutide indication. Currently, clinicians at MetroHealth instruct patients to discontinue diabetic medications the day of surgery. For those who take semaglutide for diabetes, and because the medication is taken once a week, “there is growing discussion among surgeons that the medication should not be stopped prior to surgery. This is to ensure that patients’ diabetes is well controlled before and during surgery,” Dr. Fass said.

In patients taking semaglutide for weight loss only, “there is no clear answer at this point,” he said.

Dr. Fass said the question is complicated by the fact that the medication is taken once a week. “It brings up important questions about the use of the medication during surgery, which may increase the likelihood of side effects in general and for certain types of surgery. Personally, if a patient is taking [semaglutide] for weight loss only, I would consider stopping the medication before surgery.”

The ASA was able to act quickly because it already had an expert task force review how long people should fast before surgery last year – before the explosion in popularity of the GLP-1 agonists.

Although it is still a work in progress, Dr. Champeau offered “a peek” at the recommendations. “The guidance is going to look at how far in advance the drugs should be stopped, rather than looking at making people fast even longer” before surgery, he said. “There’s just no data on that latter question.”

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

Semaglutide and related drugs for weight loss have co-opted bariatric medicine in recent months. They have also raised serious questions for hospital-based clinicians who wonder whether the drugs may pose risks to surgery patients undergoing anesthesia.

Holding Ozempic (semaglutide) before elective surgery – and if so, for how long – remains largely a judgment call at this point. Official guidance on best practices has not yet caught up to surging popularity of this and other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.

Ozempic is indicated for treating type 2 diabetes but also is prescribed off-label for weight loss. Other GLP-1 agents from Novo Nordisk, Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) injections, are Food and Drug Administration–approved for weight loss. These medications work by decreasing hunger and lowering how much people eat. Semaglutide also is available as a once-daily tablet for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus).

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has been working on guidance on the drugs. “It’s a really hot issue now. We are getting emails from our members looking for guidance,” ASA president Michael Champeau, MD, said in an interview.

But despite the interest in how the medications might affect surgery patients and interact with anesthesia, relatively little evidence exists in the literature beyond case studies. So the society is not issuing official recommendations at this point.

“We’re going to just be calling it ‘guidance’ for right now because of the paucity of the scientific literature,” said Dr. Champeau, adjunct clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s probably not going to have words like ‘must; it will probably have words like ‘should’ or ‘should consider.’ “

The ASA guidance could be out in written form soon, Dr. Champeau added.

Meanwhile, whether physicians should advise stopping these medications 24 hours, 48 hours, or up to 2 weeks before surgery remains unknown.

In search of some consensus, John Shields, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Davie Medical Center in Bermuda Run, N.C., asked colleagues on #MedTwitter: “Anyone have guidelines for ozempic around time of surgery? – holding med? – how long NPO?”

Because a full stomach can interfere with anesthesia, clinicians often advise people to stop eating and drinking 12-24 hours before elective procedures (NPO). In the case of once-weekly GLP-1 injections, which can slow gastric emptying, the optimal timeframe remains an open question. The main concern is aspiration, where a patient actively vomits while under anesthesia or their stomach contents passively come back up.

Dr. Shields’ Twitter post garnered significant reaction and comments. Within 4 days, the post was retweeted 30 times and received 72 replies and comments. Dr. Shields noted the general consensus was to hold semaglutide for 1-2 weeks before a procedure. Other suggestions included recommending a liquid diet only for 24-48 hours before surgery, recommending an NPO protocol 24-36 hours in advance, or adjusting the weekly injection so the last dose is taken 5-6 days before surgery.

Anesthesiologist Cliff Gevirtz, MD, has encountered only a few surgical patients so far taking a GLP-1 for weight loss. “And thankfully no aspiration,” added Dr. Gevirtz, clinical director of office-based ambulatory anesthesia services at Somnia Anesthesia in Harrison, N.Y.

To minimize risk, some physicians will perform an ultrasound scan to assess the contents of the stomach. If surgery is elective in a patient with a full stomach, the procedure can get postponed. Another option is to proceed with the case but treat the patient as anesthesiologists approach an emergency procedure. To be safe, many will treat the case as if the patient has a full stomach.

Dr. Gevirtz said he would treat the patient as a ‘full stomach’ and perform a rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure. He would then extubate the patient once laryngeal reflexes return.

A rapid-sequence induction involves giving the medicine that makes a patient go to sleep, giving another medicine that paralyzes them quickly, then inserting a breathing tube – all within about 30 seconds. Cricoid pressure involves pushing on the neck during intubation to try to seal off the top of the esophagus and again minimize the chances of food coming back up.

Giving metoclopramide 30 minutes before surgery is another option, Dr. Gevirtz said. Metoclopramide can hasten the emptying of stomach contents. Administration in advance is important because waiting for the drug to work can prolong time in the operating room.

Is holding semaglutide before surgery a relevant clinical question? “Yes, very much so,” said Ronnie Fass, MD, division director of gastroenterology and hepatology and the medical director of the Digestive Health Center at The MetroHealth System in Cleveland.

Dr. Fass recommended different strategies based on the semaglutide indication. Currently, clinicians at MetroHealth instruct patients to discontinue diabetic medications the day of surgery. For those who take semaglutide for diabetes, and because the medication is taken once a week, “there is growing discussion among surgeons that the medication should not be stopped prior to surgery. This is to ensure that patients’ diabetes is well controlled before and during surgery,” Dr. Fass said.

In patients taking semaglutide for weight loss only, “there is no clear answer at this point,” he said.

Dr. Fass said the question is complicated by the fact that the medication is taken once a week. “It brings up important questions about the use of the medication during surgery, which may increase the likelihood of side effects in general and for certain types of surgery. Personally, if a patient is taking [semaglutide] for weight loss only, I would consider stopping the medication before surgery.”

The ASA was able to act quickly because it already had an expert task force review how long people should fast before surgery last year – before the explosion in popularity of the GLP-1 agonists.

Although it is still a work in progress, Dr. Champeau offered “a peek” at the recommendations. “The guidance is going to look at how far in advance the drugs should be stopped, rather than looking at making people fast even longer” before surgery, he said. “There’s just no data on that latter question.”

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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