Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Life expectancy in the United States fell by 1.8 years in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, new figures from the federal government show.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw drops in life expectancy, according to the report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

The declines were mostly because of COVID-19 and “unintentional injuries,” such as drug overdoses.

The overall drop took national life expectancy from 78.8 years in 2019 to 77 years in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, ABC News reported.

States in the West and Northwest generally had higher life expectancy, with states in the South having the lowest.

Hawaii had the highest life expectancy at 80.7 years. It was followed by Washington, Minnesota, California, and Massachusetts. Mississippi had the lowest at 71.9 years, the figures show. The others in the bottom five were West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, and Kentucky.

In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-highest cause of death, leading to more than 350,000, the CDC reported earlier this year. At the same time, more people are dying annually from drug overdoses. A record 83,500 fatal overdoses were reported in 2020.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at high risk of bleeding may benefit from a low 15-mg dose of edoxaban, regardless of their frailty status, a subanalysis of the ELDERCARE-AF trial suggests.  

Major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were both numerically higher in the edoxaban group than placebo, the authors reported, with no heterogeneity by frailty status.

The subanalysis extends findings of the overall study by teasing out stroke, systemic embolism (SSE) and bleeding events across frailty status among Japanese patients aged 80 and older who were ineligible for oral anticoagulants (OACs) at usual doses.

Findings from the original phase 3 ELDERCARE-AF study were previously reported during the virtual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 and simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The current study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

All frailty levels benefited

Shintaro Akashi, MD, PhD, of National Hospital Organization Hamada Medical Center, Shimane, Japan, and colleagues analyzed data from 944 patients randomly assigned to edoxaban 15 mg or placebo for about 3 years. The mean age of participants was 86.6 years and 57% were women. Baseline characteristics, including history of bleeding, were similar between groups.

Patient physical condition was assessed via five parameters: weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level. This yielded a frailty score, with one point given for each parameter: 0 indicated robust; 1 or 2, prefrail; and 3 or higher, frail. For this analysis, robust (6.5% of patients) and prefrail (51%) were combined and categorized as nonfrail.

In the placebo group, estimated event rates for stroke or SSE were 7.1% per patient-year among frail patients and 6.1% per patient-year among those who were nonfrail.

In the edoxaban group, SSE occurred at an estimated event rate of 2.5% of frail patients and 1.5% of nonfrail patients (adjusted HR, 1.41).

The edoxaban group “consistently had fewer SSE events regardless of frailty status including each frailty assessment parameter, and there was no heterogeneity between the groups,” the authors wrote, with similar trends for the association of edoxaban 15 mg for each frailty assessment parameter.

However, major bleeding and major or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding events were both higher with edoxaban, regardless of frailty status.

More specifically, in the placebo group, the incidence of major bleeding was 2.3% in the frail group and 1.5% in the nonfrail group (adjusted HR, 1.48) versus 3.7% and 2.9%, respectively, in the edoxaban group (adjusted HR, 1.04).

In addition, exhaustion was related to a significantly increased risk of major or CRNM bleeding in frail versus nonfrail patients (16.3% vs. 8.4%; adjusted HR, 1.97). The incidences were all higher in the edoxaban group, irrespective of frailty status.

Furthermore, although both all-cause death and the net clinical composite outcome of stroke or SSE occurred more frequently in frail than in nonfrail patients, there was no association with frailty status between the edoxaban and placebo groups.

Findings unrelated to edoxaban were also noteworthy. “Surprisingly, grip strength showed an association with adverse events,” the authors wrote. Among those with lower grip strength, “there was nearly a 3-fold increase in risk of SSE and major bleeding and a more than 16-fold significant increase in risk of death. In addition, in those with exhaustion, there was nearly a 2-fold significant increase in major or CRNM bleeding.”

Thus, they suggested, in this patient population, “an objective physical assessment of grip strength or exhaustion in addition to the well-known walking speed may more accurately estimate the risks of clinical outcomes than the overall frailty assessment.”

Head-to-head comparisons needed

Commenting on the findings, Richard Kovach, MD, chair of the interventional cardiology division at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., said, “It is interesting that the lower dose of edoxaban still appears to have a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stroke in this subgroup of extremely frail elderly patients, and it may be useful in this highly selected subset.

“That being said,” he added, “the major complication of oral anticoagulants – major bleeding – appears to be similar to other NOACs prescribed more frequently in the U.S., specifically rivaroxaban and apixaban.”

“Furthermore, in the U.S., frail or complex patients who are not candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy are much more likely to receive a left atrial appendage closure device such as a Watchman or Amulet in order to avoid the risk of bleeding complications completely,” he said. “Procedural success with these devices is extremely high and procedural complications are extremely low. With both devices, the long-term reduction in stroke risk is equivalent to the use of anticoagulant therapy.

“Clearly, more research is needed to compare the outcomes with edoxaban against other NOACs,” Dr. Kovach concluded. “A head-to-head comparison of low-dose edoxaban versus left atrial appendage closure in this high-risk group would also be of great clinical value.”

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Two coauthors are employees of and five have received fees from the company. Dr. Kovach has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system (Insulet Corp) for children aged 2 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the company announced on Aug. 22.

Omnipod 5 was originally cleared for use in individuals age 6 and older in Jan. 2022, as previously reported by this news organization. It is the third semi-automated closed-loop system approved in the United States but the first that is tubing-free. It integrates with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor system and a compatible smartphone to automatically adjust insulin and protect against high and low glucose levels.

“We received tremendous first-hand reports of how Omnipod 5 made diabetes management easier for our pivotal trial participants, and the clinical data demonstrated impressive glycemic improvements as well,” Trang Ly, MBBS, PhD, senior vice president and medical director at Insulet, said in a news release. “This expanded indication for younger children gives us great pride, knowing we can further ease the burden of glucose management for these children and their caregivers with our simple to use, elegant, automated insulin delivery system.”

In a recent clinical trial in very young children (age 2-5.9 years) with type 1 diabetes, Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, and colleagues found that the Omnipod 5 lowered A1c by 0.55 percentage points and reduced time in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) by 0.27%. According to their findings, published in Diabetes Care, time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 11%, or by 2.6 hours more per day, in children in the study.

According to the release, the Omnipod 5 can now be prescribed to patients with insurance coverage. Patients can access their prescription through the pharmacy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system (Insulet Corp) for children aged 2 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the company announced on Aug. 22.

Omnipod 5 was originally cleared for use in individuals age 6 and older in Jan. 2022, as previously reported by this news organization. It is the third semi-automated closed-loop system approved in the United States but the first that is tubing-free. It integrates with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor system and a compatible smartphone to automatically adjust insulin and protect against high and low glucose levels.

“We received tremendous first-hand reports of how Omnipod 5 made diabetes management easier for our pivotal trial participants, and the clinical data demonstrated impressive glycemic improvements as well,” Trang Ly, MBBS, PhD, senior vice president and medical director at Insulet, said in a news release. “This expanded indication for younger children gives us great pride, knowing we can further ease the burden of glucose management for these children and their caregivers with our simple to use, elegant, automated insulin delivery system.”

In a recent clinical trial in very young children (age 2-5.9 years) with type 1 diabetes, Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, and colleagues found that the Omnipod 5 lowered A1c by 0.55 percentage points and reduced time in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) by 0.27%. According to their findings, published in Diabetes Care, time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 11%, or by 2.6 hours more per day, in children in the study.

According to the release, the Omnipod 5 can now be prescribed to patients with insurance coverage. Patients can access their prescription through the pharmacy.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved use of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system (Insulet Corp) for children aged 2 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the company announced on Aug. 22.

Omnipod 5 was originally cleared for use in individuals age 6 and older in Jan. 2022, as previously reported by this news organization. It is the third semi-automated closed-loop system approved in the United States but the first that is tubing-free. It integrates with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor system and a compatible smartphone to automatically adjust insulin and protect against high and low glucose levels.

“We received tremendous first-hand reports of how Omnipod 5 made diabetes management easier for our pivotal trial participants, and the clinical data demonstrated impressive glycemic improvements as well,” Trang Ly, MBBS, PhD, senior vice president and medical director at Insulet, said in a news release. “This expanded indication for younger children gives us great pride, knowing we can further ease the burden of glucose management for these children and their caregivers with our simple to use, elegant, automated insulin delivery system.”

In a recent clinical trial in very young children (age 2-5.9 years) with type 1 diabetes, Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, and colleagues found that the Omnipod 5 lowered A1c by 0.55 percentage points and reduced time in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL) by 0.27%. According to their findings, published in Diabetes Care, time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased by 11%, or by 2.6 hours more per day, in children in the study.

According to the release, the Omnipod 5 can now be prescribed to patients with insurance coverage. Patients can access their prescription through the pharmacy.

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

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Neither metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine had any impact on reducing disease severity, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19, according to results from more than 1,000 overweight or obese adult patients in the COVID-OUT randomized trial.

However, metformin showed some potential in a secondary analysis.

Early treatment to prevent severe disease remains a goal in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and biophysical modeling suggested that metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine may serve as antivirals to help reduce severe disease in COVID-19 patients, Carolyn T. Bramante, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

“We started enrolling patients at the end of December 2020,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview. “At that time, even though vaccine data were coming out, we thought it was important to test early outpatient treatment with widely available safe medications with no interactions, because the virus would evolve and vaccine availability may be limited.”

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers used a two-by-three factorial design to test the ability of metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine to prevent severe COVID-19 infection in nonhospitalized adults aged 30-85 years. A total of 1,431 patients at six U.S. sites were enrolled within 3 days of a confirmed infection and less than 7 days after the start of symptoms, then randomized to one of six groups: metformin plus fluvoxamine; metformin plus ivermectin; metformin plus placebo; placebo plus fluvoxamine; placebo plus ivermectin; and placebo plus placebo.

A total of 1,323 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years, 56% were female (of whom 6% were pregnant), and all individuals met criteria for overweight or obesity. About half (52%) of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The primary endpoint was a composite of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death. The analyses were adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination and other trial medications. Overall, the adjusted odds ratios of any primary event, compared with placebo, was 0.84 for metformin (P = .19), 1.05 for ivermectin (P = .78), and 0.94 for fluvoxamine (P = .75).

The researchers also conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of components of the primary endpoint. In this analysis, the aORs for an ED visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 for metformin, 1.39 for ivermectin, and 1.17 for fluvoxamine. The aORs for hospitalization or death were 0.47, 0.73, and 1.11 for metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine, respectively. No medication-related serious adverse events were reported with any of the drugs during the study period.

The possible benefit for prevention of severe COVID-19 with metformin was a prespecified secondary endpoint, and therefore not definitive until more research has been completed, the researchers said. Metformin has demonstrated anti-inflammatory actions in previous studies, and has shown protective effects against COVID-19 lung injury in animal studies.

Previous observational studies also have shown an association between metformin use and less severe COVID-19 in patients already taking metformin. “The proposed mechanisms of action against COVID-19 for metformin include anti-inflammatory and antiviral activity and the prevention of hyperglycemia during acute illness,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the population age range and focus on overweight and obese patients, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the disproportionately small percentage of Black and Latino patients and the potential lack of accuracy in identifying hypoxemia via home oxygen monitors.

However, the results demonstrate that none of the three repurposed drugs – metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine – prevented primary events or reduced symptom severity in COVID-19, compared with placebos, the researchers concluded.

“Metformin had several streams of evidence supporting its use: in vitro, in silico [computer modeled], observational, and in tissue. We were not surprised to see that it reduced emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death,” Dr. Bramante said in an interview.

The take-home message for clinicians is to continue to look to guideline committees for direction on COVID-19 treatments, but to continue to consider metformin along with other treatments, she said.

“All research should be replicated, whether the primary outcome is positive or negative,” Dr. Bramante emphasized. “In this case, when our positive outcome was negative and secondary outcome was positive, a confirmatory trial for metformin is particularly important.”

Ineffective drugs are inefficient use of resources

“The results of the COVID-OUT trial provide persuasive additional data that increase the confidence and degree of certainty that fluvoxamine and ivermectin are not effective in preventing progression to severe disease,” wrote Salim S. Abdool Karim, MB, and Nikita Devnarain, PhD, of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, in an accompanying editorial.

At the start of the study, in 2020, data on the use of the three drugs to prevent severe COVID-19 were “either unavailable or equivocal,” they said. Since then, accumulating data support the current study findings of the nonefficacy of ivermectin and fluvoxamine, and the World Health Organization has advised against their use for COVID-19, although the WHO has not provided guidance for the use of metformin.

The authors called on clinicians to stop using ivermectin and fluvoxamine to treat COVID-19 patients.

“With respect to clinical decisions about COVID-19 treatment, some drug choices, especially those that have negative [World Health Organization] recommendations, are clearly wrong,” they wrote. “In keeping with evidence-based medical practice, patients with COVID-19 must be treated with efficacious medications; they deserve nothing less.”

The study was supported by the Parsemus Foundation, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Fast Grants, and UnitedHealth Group Foundation. The fluvoxamine placebo tablets were donated by Apotex Pharmaceuticals. The ivermectin placebo and active tablets were donated by Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals. Lead author Dr. Bramante was supported the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Abdool Karim serves as a member of the World Health Organization Science Council. Dr. Devnarain had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to [email protected] with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to [email protected] with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to [email protected] with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

The human pregnancy data reported for these 16 agents are very limited as only 8 of the drugs have this data. However, the 8 reports indicated that the use of these drugs was highly important for the mother and did not cause embryo/fetal harm.

• Acetylcysteine

The need for this antidote in a pregnant or lactating woman is most likely a rare requirement. However, the need for this agent does occur in women who have taken a potentially hepatic toxic dose of acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol).

• Black widow spider antivenin

Only three reports of the use of this agent in a pregnant woman have been located. In each case, the symptoms from the spider bite did not respond to other therapies but did within 1 hour to the antivenin. There was no fetal harm in these cases.

• Deferasirox

This agent is an oral iron-chelating agent used for the treatment of chronic iron overload. Five case reports have described its use without causing any fetal harm.

• Deferoxamine

This agent has been used in more than 65 pregnancies for acute iron overdose or for transfusion-dependent thalassemia. No reports have observed adverse human developmental effects.

• Digoxin immune FAB (ovine)

Several reports have described the use of this agent in pregnancy. No fetal harm has been observed, but none of the reports involved exposure during organogenesis. However, in cases of digoxin overdose, the maternal benefits of therapy should take priority over the embryo/fetus.

• Dimercaprol

Although the limited animal data suggest low risk, there are no reports of the use of this drug in human organogenesis. The absence of data prevents an assessment of the embryo-fetal risk, but the maternal benefit and indirect embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh that risk.

• Edetate calcium disodium

This agent is used to treat acute or chronic lead poisoning. It is compatible in pregnancy because the maternal and possibly the embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh any unknown direct or indirect risks.

• Flumazenil

The use of this drug in the third trimester has been reported in two cases. Because the drug is indicated to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system, the maternal benefit should far outweigh the unknown embryo-fetal risk.

• Glucagon

The embryo-fetal risks appear to be very low. Apparently, the drug does not cross the placenta.

• Glucarpidase

This drug is indicated for the treatment of methotrexate toxicity. There are no reports describing the use of this drug in pregnancy or during breastfeeding.

• Idarucizumab

This agent is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that is indicated for the reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran. No reports describing its use in human or animal pregnancy have been located. However, the maternal benefit appears to be high and probably outweighs the unknown risk to the embryo/fetus.

• Lanthanum carbonate

There are no human pregnancy or lactation data. It is used to reduce blood levels of phosphate in people with kidney disease.

• Pralidoxime

This agent relieves the paralysis of the muscles of respiration caused by an organophosphate pesticide or related compound. The human pregnancy experience is limited to two cases, one at 36 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, both of which delivered normal infants.

• Sapropterin

Four reports have described the use of sapropterin to lower blood phenylalanine levels in 31 pregnancies. There were no embryo-fetal adverse effects attributable to the drug.

• Sevelamer

Sevelamer is used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in people with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis. There are no human pregnancy or breastfeeding data.

• Succimer

This drug is a heavy metal–chelating agent that is indicated for the treatment of lead poisoning in pediatric patients. The drug was teratogenic in rats and mice. Two reports described the use of the drug in two pregnant women for lead poisoning. It has also been used as an antidote for the treatment of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning in adults, but there have been no reports of this use in pregnant patients.

Mr. Briggs, now retired, was a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The human pregnancy data reported for these 16 agents are very limited as only 8 of the drugs have this data. However, the 8 reports indicated that the use of these drugs was highly important for the mother and did not cause embryo/fetal harm.

• Acetylcysteine

The need for this antidote in a pregnant or lactating woman is most likely a rare requirement. However, the need for this agent does occur in women who have taken a potentially hepatic toxic dose of acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol).

• Black widow spider antivenin

Only three reports of the use of this agent in a pregnant woman have been located. In each case, the symptoms from the spider bite did not respond to other therapies but did within 1 hour to the antivenin. There was no fetal harm in these cases.

• Deferasirox

This agent is an oral iron-chelating agent used for the treatment of chronic iron overload. Five case reports have described its use without causing any fetal harm.

• Deferoxamine

This agent has been used in more than 65 pregnancies for acute iron overdose or for transfusion-dependent thalassemia. No reports have observed adverse human developmental effects.

• Digoxin immune FAB (ovine)

Several reports have described the use of this agent in pregnancy. No fetal harm has been observed, but none of the reports involved exposure during organogenesis. However, in cases of digoxin overdose, the maternal benefits of therapy should take priority over the embryo/fetus.

• Dimercaprol

Although the limited animal data suggest low risk, there are no reports of the use of this drug in human organogenesis. The absence of data prevents an assessment of the embryo-fetal risk, but the maternal benefit and indirect embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh that risk.

• Edetate calcium disodium

This agent is used to treat acute or chronic lead poisoning. It is compatible in pregnancy because the maternal and possibly the embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh any unknown direct or indirect risks.

• Flumazenil

The use of this drug in the third trimester has been reported in two cases. Because the drug is indicated to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system, the maternal benefit should far outweigh the unknown embryo-fetal risk.

• Glucagon

The embryo-fetal risks appear to be very low. Apparently, the drug does not cross the placenta.

• Glucarpidase

This drug is indicated for the treatment of methotrexate toxicity. There are no reports describing the use of this drug in pregnancy or during breastfeeding.

• Idarucizumab

This agent is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that is indicated for the reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran. No reports describing its use in human or animal pregnancy have been located. However, the maternal benefit appears to be high and probably outweighs the unknown risk to the embryo/fetus.

• Lanthanum carbonate

There are no human pregnancy or lactation data. It is used to reduce blood levels of phosphate in people with kidney disease.

• Pralidoxime

This agent relieves the paralysis of the muscles of respiration caused by an organophosphate pesticide or related compound. The human pregnancy experience is limited to two cases, one at 36 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, both of which delivered normal infants.

• Sapropterin

Four reports have described the use of sapropterin to lower blood phenylalanine levels in 31 pregnancies. There were no embryo-fetal adverse effects attributable to the drug.

• Sevelamer

Sevelamer is used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in people with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis. There are no human pregnancy or breastfeeding data.

• Succimer

This drug is a heavy metal–chelating agent that is indicated for the treatment of lead poisoning in pediatric patients. The drug was teratogenic in rats and mice. Two reports described the use of the drug in two pregnant women for lead poisoning. It has also been used as an antidote for the treatment of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning in adults, but there have been no reports of this use in pregnant patients.

Mr. Briggs, now retired, was a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The human pregnancy data reported for these 16 agents are very limited as only 8 of the drugs have this data. However, the 8 reports indicated that the use of these drugs was highly important for the mother and did not cause embryo/fetal harm.

• Acetylcysteine

The need for this antidote in a pregnant or lactating woman is most likely a rare requirement. However, the need for this agent does occur in women who have taken a potentially hepatic toxic dose of acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol).

• Black widow spider antivenin

Only three reports of the use of this agent in a pregnant woman have been located. In each case, the symptoms from the spider bite did not respond to other therapies but did within 1 hour to the antivenin. There was no fetal harm in these cases.

• Deferasirox

This agent is an oral iron-chelating agent used for the treatment of chronic iron overload. Five case reports have described its use without causing any fetal harm.

• Deferoxamine

This agent has been used in more than 65 pregnancies for acute iron overdose or for transfusion-dependent thalassemia. No reports have observed adverse human developmental effects.

• Digoxin immune FAB (ovine)

Several reports have described the use of this agent in pregnancy. No fetal harm has been observed, but none of the reports involved exposure during organogenesis. However, in cases of digoxin overdose, the maternal benefits of therapy should take priority over the embryo/fetus.

• Dimercaprol

Although the limited animal data suggest low risk, there are no reports of the use of this drug in human organogenesis. The absence of data prevents an assessment of the embryo-fetal risk, but the maternal benefit and indirect embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh that risk.

• Edetate calcium disodium

This agent is used to treat acute or chronic lead poisoning. It is compatible in pregnancy because the maternal and possibly the embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh any unknown direct or indirect risks.

• Flumazenil

The use of this drug in the third trimester has been reported in two cases. Because the drug is indicated to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system, the maternal benefit should far outweigh the unknown embryo-fetal risk.

• Glucagon

The embryo-fetal risks appear to be very low. Apparently, the drug does not cross the placenta.

• Glucarpidase

This drug is indicated for the treatment of methotrexate toxicity. There are no reports describing the use of this drug in pregnancy or during breastfeeding.

• Idarucizumab

This agent is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that is indicated for the reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran. No reports describing its use in human or animal pregnancy have been located. However, the maternal benefit appears to be high and probably outweighs the unknown risk to the embryo/fetus.

• Lanthanum carbonate

There are no human pregnancy or lactation data. It is used to reduce blood levels of phosphate in people with kidney disease.

• Pralidoxime

This agent relieves the paralysis of the muscles of respiration caused by an organophosphate pesticide or related compound. The human pregnancy experience is limited to two cases, one at 36 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, both of which delivered normal infants.

• Sapropterin

Four reports have described the use of sapropterin to lower blood phenylalanine levels in 31 pregnancies. There were no embryo-fetal adverse effects attributable to the drug.

• Sevelamer

Sevelamer is used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in people with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis. There are no human pregnancy or breastfeeding data.

• Succimer

This drug is a heavy metal–chelating agent that is indicated for the treatment of lead poisoning in pediatric patients. The drug was teratogenic in rats and mice. Two reports described the use of the drug in two pregnant women for lead poisoning. It has also been used as an antidote for the treatment of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning in adults, but there have been no reports of this use in pregnant patients.

Mr. Briggs, now retired, was a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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