The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

Screening patients for social needs and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care, said a physician who presented a study on the social needs of patients at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s 2022 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer held in March.

The study, by Anna L. Beavis, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist with the Johns Hopkins Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Baltimore, identified social needs, such as financial assistance and housing insecurity, among a group of 373 patients who completed a written assessment during regular office visits.

The patients were asked about food and housing insecurities, utility and transportation needs, and financial assistance. For some patients these are such dire issues, they actually affect patient outcomes.

While the results were limited to a single urban population and may not be generalizable to other populations, Dr. Beavis said the findings are noteworthy because for physicians, these are tangible items that can be addressed to improve patient outcomes.

“The greatest obstacle is not asking the questions, it’s in ensuring there are acceptable and effective mechanisms for referrals to resources. It is important to have a plan in place to refer patients to resources before beginning a screening program,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Beavis said that screening and referring patients to resources should be a routine part of cancer care. In this study, 92% of patients completed the questionnaire in her office and the process doesn’t slow her clinic down, she said.

“Our findings demonstrate that social needs are prevalent, and screening for them should be a routine part of the standard of care for cancer patients,” Dr. Beavis said. “Social needs are also actionable for us as physicians, because we can address tangible, individual-level needs, such as food insecurity and transportation, through the provision of resources. These needs stand in contrast to the social determinants of health, which are community-level and require changes on a much larger scale through policy decisions.”

Of the 373 patients in the study group, 74 patients were identified as having at least one social need. Fifty-seven percent asked for a referral to a partner organization for resource assistance. Fifty-eight percent of the study group were White and 42% identified as patients of color, including Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple/other races.

“We’ve begun to assess patient satisfaction and have found that patients feel these questions are important – plus, they’re comfortable answering them,” she said.

Dr. Beavis’ study was funded by a grant from the American Cancer Society and Pfizer Global Medical Grants under the Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care Competitive Grant Program.

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

Dupilumab is a subcutaneous injection therapy that inhibits the interleukin 4 receptor alpha subunit. It has been approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AD since 2017 and has since been approved for children and adolescents older than 6 years. Many real-world studies of the effectiveness of dupilumab have been published over the past few years. Kojanova and colleagues reported findings from a retrospective, multicenter study of 360 adults with severe AD who received dupilumab. They found that a high proportion of patients achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16 (66.6%), 1 year (89.5%), and 2 years (95.8%). Drug persistence rates were very high (> 90%) throughout the 2 years of therapy, suggesting that dupilumab was effective and well-tolerated.

Dupilumab was previously found to be associated with increased conjunctivitis in clinical trials and real-world studies. Schneeweiss and colleagues conducted a population-based longitudinal study of 5,004,117 patients with AD who newly initiated dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate, and cyclosporine. They found that the risk of developing conjunctivitis diagnosed in clinical practice within 6 months of treatment initiation was approximately double with dupilumab compared with methotrexate, mycophenolate, or cyclosporine. Interestingly, comorbid asthma was found to be a risk factor for conjunctivitis in dupilumab initiators. This study provides insight into how commonly clinically significant conjunctivitis occurs with dupilumab treatment. Of note, the study results may underestimate the incidence of conjunctivitis because milder cases may go undetected.

Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor that was approved in the United States in 2022 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. Simpson and colleagues reported on the long-term efficacy and safety of oral upadacitinib from the phase 3 double-blind, randomized controlled trials Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis ho had an inadequate response to topical therapy. The initial phase of the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies was 16 weeks in duration, with a placebo control group. At week 16, patients who received 15 or 30 mg upadacitinib in the initial 16 weeks of the study continued to receive that dose. Patients who received placebo in the initial 16 weeks were randomly assigned to receive oral 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib daily. So, in the long run, all patients received upadacitinib in the second phase of the study but were blinded to the dose they were receiving. The results from the first 16 weeks of treatment were previously published. Simpson and colleagues reported on the results up to week 52 from the second phase of the study. They showed that at week 52, 82.0% and 79.1% of patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 achieved a 75% improvement in EASI-75 when continuing on 15 mg upadacitinib and 84.9% and 84.3% in patients continuing 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively. More than 80% of patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib at week 16 achieved EASI-75 at week 52. No safety signals were observed in this phase of the study that were not previously observed in other studies of upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis and other indications (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis). These results indicate that upadacitinib has durable efficacy with long-term treatment in moderate-to-severe AD. These studies are ongoing, and I look forward to future results reporting for even longer-term treatment.

It is an exciting time in dermatology with the arrival of multiple novel therapies for atopic dermatitis. The field has already benefited so much by the tremendous interest and research effort into understanding how to best manage this disease. With so many more treatments in the pipeline, perhaps the best is yet to come.

Dupilumab is a subcutaneous injection therapy that inhibits the interleukin 4 receptor alpha subunit. It has been approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AD since 2017 and has since been approved for children and adolescents older than 6 years. Many real-world studies of the effectiveness of dupilumab have been published over the past few years. Kojanova and colleagues reported findings from a retrospective, multicenter study of 360 adults with severe AD who received dupilumab. They found that a high proportion of patients achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16 (66.6%), 1 year (89.5%), and 2 years (95.8%). Drug persistence rates were very high (> 90%) throughout the 2 years of therapy, suggesting that dupilumab was effective and well-tolerated.

Dupilumab was previously found to be associated with increased conjunctivitis in clinical trials and real-world studies. Schneeweiss and colleagues conducted a population-based longitudinal study of 5,004,117 patients with AD who newly initiated dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate, and cyclosporine. They found that the risk of developing conjunctivitis diagnosed in clinical practice within 6 months of treatment initiation was approximately double with dupilumab compared with methotrexate, mycophenolate, or cyclosporine. Interestingly, comorbid asthma was found to be a risk factor for conjunctivitis in dupilumab initiators. This study provides insight into how commonly clinically significant conjunctivitis occurs with dupilumab treatment. Of note, the study results may underestimate the incidence of conjunctivitis because milder cases may go undetected.

Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor that was approved in the United States in 2022 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. Simpson and colleagues reported on the long-term efficacy and safety of oral upadacitinib from the phase 3 double-blind, randomized controlled trials Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis ho had an inadequate response to topical therapy. The initial phase of the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies was 16 weeks in duration, with a placebo control group. At week 16, patients who received 15 or 30 mg upadacitinib in the initial 16 weeks of the study continued to receive that dose. Patients who received placebo in the initial 16 weeks were randomly assigned to receive oral 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib daily. So, in the long run, all patients received upadacitinib in the second phase of the study but were blinded to the dose they were receiving. The results from the first 16 weeks of treatment were previously published. Simpson and colleagues reported on the results up to week 52 from the second phase of the study. They showed that at week 52, 82.0% and 79.1% of patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 achieved a 75% improvement in EASI-75 when continuing on 15 mg upadacitinib and 84.9% and 84.3% in patients continuing 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively. More than 80% of patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib at week 16 achieved EASI-75 at week 52. No safety signals were observed in this phase of the study that were not previously observed in other studies of upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis and other indications (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis). These results indicate that upadacitinib has durable efficacy with long-term treatment in moderate-to-severe AD. These studies are ongoing, and I look forward to future results reporting for even longer-term treatment.

It is an exciting time in dermatology with the arrival of multiple novel therapies for atopic dermatitis. The field has already benefited so much by the tremendous interest and research effort into understanding how to best manage this disease. With so many more treatments in the pipeline, perhaps the best is yet to come.

Dupilumab is a subcutaneous injection therapy that inhibits the interleukin 4 receptor alpha subunit. It has been approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AD since 2017 and has since been approved for children and adolescents older than 6 years. Many real-world studies of the effectiveness of dupilumab have been published over the past few years. Kojanova and colleagues reported findings from a retrospective, multicenter study of 360 adults with severe AD who received dupilumab. They found that a high proportion of patients achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16 (66.6%), 1 year (89.5%), and 2 years (95.8%). Drug persistence rates were very high (> 90%) throughout the 2 years of therapy, suggesting that dupilumab was effective and well-tolerated.

Dupilumab was previously found to be associated with increased conjunctivitis in clinical trials and real-world studies. Schneeweiss and colleagues conducted a population-based longitudinal study of 5,004,117 patients with AD who newly initiated dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate, and cyclosporine. They found that the risk of developing conjunctivitis diagnosed in clinical practice within 6 months of treatment initiation was approximately double with dupilumab compared with methotrexate, mycophenolate, or cyclosporine. Interestingly, comorbid asthma was found to be a risk factor for conjunctivitis in dupilumab initiators. This study provides insight into how commonly clinically significant conjunctivitis occurs with dupilumab treatment. Of note, the study results may underestimate the incidence of conjunctivitis because milder cases may go undetected.

Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor that was approved in the United States in 2022 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. Simpson and colleagues reported on the long-term efficacy and safety of oral upadacitinib from the phase 3 double-blind, randomized controlled trials Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis ho had an inadequate response to topical therapy. The initial phase of the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies was 16 weeks in duration, with a placebo control group. At week 16, patients who received 15 or 30 mg upadacitinib in the initial 16 weeks of the study continued to receive that dose. Patients who received placebo in the initial 16 weeks were randomly assigned to receive oral 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib daily. So, in the long run, all patients received upadacitinib in the second phase of the study but were blinded to the dose they were receiving. The results from the first 16 weeks of treatment were previously published. Simpson and colleagues reported on the results up to week 52 from the second phase of the study. They showed that at week 52, 82.0% and 79.1% of patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 achieved a 75% improvement in EASI-75 when continuing on 15 mg upadacitinib and 84.9% and 84.3% in patients continuing 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively. More than 80% of patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib at week 16 achieved EASI-75 at week 52. No safety signals were observed in this phase of the study that were not previously observed in other studies of upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis and other indications (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis). These results indicate that upadacitinib has durable efficacy with long-term treatment in moderate-to-severe AD. These studies are ongoing, and I look forward to future results reporting for even longer-term treatment.

It is an exciting time in dermatology with the arrival of multiple novel therapies for atopic dermatitis. The field has already benefited so much by the tremendous interest and research effort into understanding how to best manage this disease. With so many more treatments in the pipeline, perhaps the best is yet to come.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent SLN360 was well tolerated and lowered lipoprotein(a) by up to 98% in volunteers without cardiovascular disease but with elevated Lp(a) in the small dose-ranging APOLLO trial.

Following a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), there was a dose-dependent reduction in Lp(a) plasma levels by a median of 46%, 86%, 96%, and 98% at about 45-60 days with 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg doses, respectively.

Lp(a) levels at 150 days were 70% and 81% below baseline with the 300-and 600-mg doses.

In addition, for participants receiving the two highest doses, apolipoprotein B (apo B) was reduced was 21% and 24%, respectively, and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), by 21% and 26%, respectively.

“The development of therapies targeting messenger RNA has made possible significant lowering of lipoprotein(a). Whether these reductions can impact on the incidence of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] or prevent progression of aortic stenosis remains to be determined but, we think, that optimism is warranted,” said principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

The results were presented in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Elevated Lp(a) is a powerful genetic risk factor for ASCVD and aortic stenosis, which affects some 64 million Americans and 1.4 billion people globally. Although several experimental agents are under investigation, no currently approved drugs selectively lower Lp(a).

SLN360 is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using RNA interference to silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.
 

Testing vacuum

Dr. Nissen said in an interview that one of the big takeaways from the study is the need for greater testing of Lp(a). Automatic assays are available in almost every hospital, but two-unit systems (nmol/L and mg/dL) are used and thresholds for accelerated risk vary. The Cleveland Clinic currently tests all patients in its cardiac critical care unit and its prevention clinic.

“Someone comes in with an MI in their 40s and we measure it and it’s 100, 150 [mg/dL], clearly abnormal, and often these patients don’t have a lot of other risk factors,” Dr. Nissen said. “So the explanation very likely for their premature disease is this risk factor. We now have to educate everybody about the importance of getting it tested and finding out about it.”

During a media briefing, ACC 2022 program cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said testing for Lp(a) is not well reimbursed by insurance providers and that her patients will often cancel the test after learning it won’t be reimbursed because they don’t understand it.

“What Dr. Nissen is telling you: It should be measured in everyone at least once, we all believe that, but it hasn’t made it into the major guidelines,” she added. “I think what we’re going to have to do is have the guidelines mandate it and the insurers will follow.”

Guidelines currently list elevated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor,” which can help with at least recommending LDL-C treatment in patients with borderline risk and a sky-high Lp(a), noted Dr. Nissen. “But we need to go beyond that.”
 

Safety analyses

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 adults without known ASCVD and an Lp(a) concentration greater than 150 nmol/L (approximately 60 mg/dL) who received one of the four doses of SLN360 or placebo subcutaneously. Participants were monitored in a research unit for the first 24 hours and then followed periodically for up to 150 days. At baseline, their median Lp(a) level was 224 nmol/L, mean apo B level was 85 mg/dL, and mean LDL-C level was 108 mg/dL.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild, mostly grade 1 injection site reactions (83% at 30 mg, 100% at 100 mg, 67% at 300 mg, and 33% at 600 mg) and headache (33%, 17%, 0%, and 83%).

At the highest dose, C-reactive protein was increased in four patients and neutrophil counts in three. ALT and AST levels were elevated three times above the upper limit of normal in one patient at the lowest dose.

One participant in the lowest-dose group experienced two serious adverse events unrelated to SLN360 at day 45 after receiving a SARS-Co-V-2 vaccine.

Dr. Nissen noted that safety cannot be comprehensively assessed in a trial of this duration or size and that follow-up has been extended to 1 year in the two highest-dose groups.

Enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the study in patients with high Lp(a) and a history of stable ASCVD. A phase 2 study of SLN360 is also planned for the second half of 2022, pending regulatory discussions.
 

But will it reduce ASCVD events?

Study discussant Vera Bittner, MD, MSPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that the development of Lp(a)-specific lowering agents has been a “holy grail” for years and congratulated the authors on a successful trial demonstrating very robust Lp(a) lowering.

She asked Dr. Nissen about the observation in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor trials that absolute Lp(a) lowering is greater at higher baseline levels.

Dr. Nissen said this kind of analysis wasn’t possible because of the small sample size but “because these agents so effectively degrade messenger RNA, it’s very likely we will see robust suppression of plasma levels virtually regardless of the baseline level.”

Dr. Bittner also questioned if “LDL-C declined because of the cholesterol content in the lipoprotein(a) or is there some additional effect on LDL particles themselves?”

“It’s a really terrific question that will ultimately need to be answered,” Dr. Nissen replied. “There’s some controversy about the extent to which suppressing lipoprotein(a) will reduce LDL because the assays for LDL are measuring the LDL that’s in lipoprotein(a) and the LDL that is not. ... I think it’s probably a bystander effect, but it may also contribute to efficacy from a morbidity and mortality point of view, which is why we measured it.”

Dr. Bittner also called out the elevation in C-reactive protein and leukocytosis, which has not been seen in other siRNA studies. Dr. Nissen said the increases in C-reactive protein occurred in the first few days after administration and were gone after a week or so. “I don’t see it as a long-term limitation.”

In an accompanying editorial, Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, MSc, University of Cambridge (England), suggests that because circulating Lp(a) particles can progressively become trapped within the artery wall over time, it’s unlikely that lowering Lp(a) for only a few years starting later in life will eliminate the effect of lifelong exposure to Lp(a) and may only cut cardiovascular event risk by about 10%-15%.

He called for continued safety and efficacy evaluation of SLN360 and olpasiran, a similar siRNA agent in early development, and said further insights into whether large absolute reductions in Lp(a) can reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events will come from cardiovascular trials, such as the ongoing phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON trial. It follows strong phase 2 results with the antisense agent AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx and has Dr. Nissen pulling double duty as study chair.

The study was funded by Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported consulting for many pharmaceutical companies, which are directed to pay any renumeration directly to charity. Dr. Bittner reported consultant fees or honoraria from Pfizer; other from AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, and Sanofi-Aventis; and research/research grants from Amgen and Novartis. Dr. Ference reported financial ties to Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Esperion Therapeutics, and numerous other companies.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The new heart failure (HF) guidelines released by three North American societies had a lot of catching up to do given the significant, even paradigm-shifting, additions to available treatment options in the last few years.

The landscape now includes both new and repurposed drug therapies that benefit almost without regard to ejection fraction (EF), and evidence-based urgency to engage patients early on with at least four core medication classes, so-called quadruple therapy.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

The guideline document offers a roadmap for navigating those key issues and many others and uses some creative tactics. They include the introduction of generalist-friendly labels for the traditional but obscurely named four stages of HF severity that, it is hoped, will have wider reach and expand the use of effective therapies.

It introduces additional disease-staging terminology that characterizes the syndrome as a continuum:  

• “At risk for HF” for stage A, applied to asymptomatic patients with risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension but no known cardiac changes.
• “Pre-HF” for stage B, which adds cardiac structural changes or elevated natriuretic peptides, still in the absence of symptoms.
• “Symptomatic HF” for stage C, that is, structural disease with current or previous symptoms.
• “Advanced HF” for stage D, characterized by severe debilitating symptoms or repeated hospitalizations even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

The new terms should be “easier for primary care physicians as well as nonspecialists” to remember and use effectively “and easier to translate to the patients,” compared with the solely alphabetical staging labels appearing in the guidelines for more than 15 years, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

An emphasis on “at risk for HF” and “pre-HF” in the new document may help efforts to expand primary prevention of HF and management of preclinical HF. The guideline, Dr. Bozkurt said, includes specific treatment recommendations for those early stages.

The document also updates and sometimes introduces “recommendations for advanced heart failure, acute heart failure, and comorbidities – specifically for atrial fibrillation, iron deficiency, sleep apnea, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease,” Dr. Bozkurt observed, as well as for cardiomyopathy and HF related to pregnancy and cancer chemotherapy. “So, it’s a very comprehensive guideline.”

Dr. Bozkurt is vice chair of the guideline writing committee and helped introduce the guideline at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The document, developed by the ACC, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America, was published April 1, 2022, in the societies’ flagship journals, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively. It replaces the 2013 guideline from the ACC and AHA and the ACC/AHA/HFSA–focused update from 2017.

“We really need to treat early, and then we need to treat appropriately,” Douglas L. Mann, MD, Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. Dr. Mann, who was not involved in development of the new guideline, said he is “enthusiastic” about the new staging terminology.

“I think it makes it easier to convey the message that these people do need medicines, will benefit from medicines, and in some cases heart failure can be preventable,” he said. “I’m in favor of anything that simplifies it and makes it more readily interpretable by busy doctors who aren’t specialists.”

With the new staging terminology and in other ways, the guideline seems to appreciate cardiomyopathy as a journey from preclinical to advanced symptomatic stages – the preclinical “at-risk” stage tightening focus on primary prevention – and updated thinking on classification of HF by EF.

For example, there is new consideration of “HF with improved ejection fraction” (HFimpEF), which suggests the patient may be evolving from HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) to HF with EF that is preserved or mildly reduced, or vice versa.

With HFimpEF, which identifies patients previously with an EF of 40% or lower that improves to beyond 40% at follow-up testing, patients should continue on the medications they had been previously taking for HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt said.

Patients at risk for HF, in stage A by the older terminology, are characterized by one or more significant HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, or coronary disease, as they have been in prior guidelines. But the new document, Dr. Bozkurt observed, adds genetic cardiomyopathies and exposure to cardiotoxic agents to the list.

Perhaps surprisingly, the guideline also includes elevated natriuretic peptides as an indicator of “at risk for HF,” with implications for screening. The evidence suggests that, “for patients who are at risk for heart failure, natriuretic peptide-based screening, followed by team-based care, can prevent development of left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

Persons at risk for HF realistically encompass a huge swath of the population given the world prevalence of high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Management of stage A, therefore, focuses on established tenets of primary cardiovascular prevention, such as weight and BP control, exercise, and healthy dietary choices.

They may well be eligible for treatment with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been “game changers,” Dr. Mann said. “Now you can give them to diabetics and it’s going to prevent heart failure and [cardiovascular] events. We didn’t have a drug like that before, so I think that places a lot of emphasis on aggressive treatment of diabetes.”

For patients with symptomatic HF, the document touts multidisciplinary care and early initiation of drugs from each of four drug classes. Such quadruple therapy includes an SGLT2 inhibitor along with a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor: the “core foundational therapies” for patients with HFrEF, Dr. Bozkurt observed.

Of note, she said, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) is the preferred RAS inhibitor. But “if the ARNI cannot be used, then use ACE inhibitors.” If the patient is intolerant of ACE inhibitors because of cough or angioedema, then the choice should be an angiotensin-receptor blocker.

“We have very effective therapies offering survival and morbidity benefits as well as improvements in quality of life and reverse remodeling,” Dr. Bozkurt observed. “The most important message is that optimization of therapies, including all of these medication classes, saves lives.”

The guideline also includes, for the first time, a series of “value statements” on cost-effectiveness of different therapies that assign a “high-value” rating to MRAs, hydralazine, and isosorbide dinitrate in otherwise optimally treated self-identified African Americans, and device therapy in appropriately selected patients. The statements hold SGLT2 inhibitors in chronic symptomatic HF and cardiac transplantation in advanced GDMT-resistant HF to be of “intermediate” value.

The value statements, Dr. Bozkurt noted, “are included throughout the document when there is evidence; when there is a high-quality cost-effectiveness study published.”

Dr. Bozkurt disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor Pharma; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA; and holding other relationships with Abbott Laboratories and Relypsa. Dr. Mann disclosed receiving honoraria or consulting fees from MyoKardia, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

People who received personalized nutrition education in a series of sessions at their regular grocery store significantly improved adherence to a healthy diet, in a new “first-of-its-kind” study in which scientific researchers partnered with a large supermarket company.

In the SuperWIN study, participants were given individualized advice from supermarket-based dietitians using data on their own buying habits recorded on their supermarket loyalty cards. This was associated with an increased adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which emphasizes vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium and has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

One group of patients also received additional education about healthy eating and meal planning through online technologies, and this group showed even better adherence to the DASH diet.

The study was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology by Dylan Steen, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati.

“The SuperWIN study provides evidence for the benefit of delivering healthy-eating interventions at modern supermarkets and retail-based clinics,” Dr. Steen said. “It demonstrates the efficacy of dietary interventions harnessing the physical environment of the supermarket, the retail-based dietitians working within the store, and the purchasing data captured on the store’s loyalty cards.”

The study was conducted in partnership with Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which also operates a large chain of pharmacies and health clinics.

Dr. Steen said the study was addressing one of the biggest public health problems – unhealthy eating – with an innovative approach. “We need to think about how we can extend the reach of modern health care systems into communities and better deliver services right where people are; meet them where they live,” he said at an ACC press conference.

Commenting on the study at the press conference, Eileen Handberg, PhD, professor of medicine at University of Florida, Gainesville, and immediate past chair of the ACC Cardiovascular Care Team Council, said: “I am amazingly excited about this. There is so much potential here. We have never really taken advantage of the current explosion in retail-based health care before.”

Dr. Handberg suggested the study had major implications for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. “Little kids go shopping with their parents, so you have the ability here to change behavior from children on up if you can change the dynamic of the choices they make in the grocery store.”

In his presentation, Dr. Steen noted that, despite many longstanding guidelines on healthy eating, about 75% of Americans still have a poor-quality diet. This trial was conducted to see if a new approach could improve that situation. “If we change the environment in which we deliver dietary education, we can make a difference.”

The SuperWIN trial was conducted in 13 Kroger stores in Ohio and Kentucky. The study enrolled 267 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor from a primary care network who regularly shopped at one of the study stores. All participants also had to be willing to follow the DASH diet, which was taught at each educational session in the trial.

All participants received one “enhanced” medical nutrition therapy that was guided by the individual’s own dietary intake analytics.

They were then randomly assigned to one of three arms. The control group received no further education. The strategy 1 group received six additional teaching sessions in the supermarket aisles over a 3-month period. Each session was guided by updated individualized purchasing data provided to the dietitian and the participant. 

The strategy 2 group received the same six additional teaching sessions as strategy 1, but they also had some additional teaching on healthy eating and meal planning from a variety of online shopping tools, and nutrition and health care apps.  

“The supermarket analytics were automatically collected so the dietitians could tell what each person liked to eat, how much of each product they were buying and how much they were spending,” Dr. Steen explained.

COVID hit halfway through the trial, and 20 participants were withdrawn for their own safety as they could no longer visit the stores, but the trial continued with the rest of the participants with enhanced safety precautions. The overall analysis cohort was 247 participants.

The average age of the participants was mid-50s, around 70% were female, and most did not have a history of cardiovascular disease.

Eating habits were assessed by three 24-hour dietary recalls assessed at the start of the study and at 3 and 6 months. The DASH score, which is a measure of adherence to the DASH diet, was calculated from this information. The score can range from 0 to 90, with an increased score showing increased adherence.

In one analysis, the researchers compared the DASH scores from the two intervention groups together with the control group, and in a second analysis they compared the scores in the strategy 2 group with those in the strategy 1 group.

Before the pandemic there was “near 100%” attendance for the six visits over the 3-month study period, which Dr. Steen said he thought was “remarkable.” During the pandemic, attendance came down to around 80%.

Results showed that the DASH score increased in all three groups at 3 months, with stepwise increases corresponding to the intensity of the intervention. DASH scores increased by 5.8 points in the control group, by 8.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and by 12.4 points in the strategy 2 group.

DASH scores significantly differed between the two intervention groups and the control group (P = .02). “This shows that purchasing data–guided in-store tours do increase the efficacy of dietary education,” Dr. Steen said.

The difference in scores between the strategy 1 and strategy 2 groups was also significant (P = .01). “This shows online enhancements increase adherence to the DASH diet even further,” Dr. Steen commented

By 6 months, the scores had dropped off a little but were still increased from baseline: by 4.4 points in the control group, 6.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and 8.4 points in the strategy 2 group. “There was again a stepwise increase as the intervention intensified, but there was no longer a significant difference between the interventions and control,” Dr. Steen noted.

Secondary endpoints included blood pressure and body mass index. Systolic blood pressure decreased slightly in all three groups: by 2.8 mm Hg in the control group, 6.6 mm Hg in the strategy 1 group, and 5.7 mm Hg in the strategy 2 group. Body mass index was reduced by 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, but the between-group differences were not significant.

Dr. Steen said this is the first study of its kind to date in which scientific researchers collaborated with a large supermarket chain. He explained they also involved a primary care network so that health care utilization information will be available.

“We can the integrate retail-based health care information with traditional health care information. And we can start to look at downstream health care utilization and cost outcomes as well, which will be important as we start to think how to evolve the health care system,” he commented. “The hope is that we can get more scientists working with more retailers to really drive the evidence to shape the evolution of our health care system.”

Challenges ahead

Dr. Handberg pointed out there would be challenges in reaching the underserved population who do not shop at the major supermarkets. “We need to figure out how to get partnerships across the whole spectrum of grocery stores.”

She also noted that 3 months (the duration of the study intervention) was not much time to change the eating habits of a family. “Interventions may have to be a bit more intensive to get the change in blood pressure and weight that we would want to see.”

Dr Handberg hoped the major grocery store companies will see the opportunities in this approach. “Changing behavior is very complicated, and the key will be how to make people stick with the changes. But grocery stores are smart. They have got us going to their pharmacies, so getting us to see a dietitian is not that much of a stretch.”

Moderator of the ACC late-breaker session at which the study was presented, Pamela Morris, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who is also ACC annual scientific session chair, asked whether the approach could be sustained.

“I am thinking back to the barber shop study of blood pressure treatment and to my knowledge those PharmDs are no longer in those barbershops, taking blood pressures, counseling patients, and prescribing antihypertensives. So is Kroger maintaining a long-term commitment to providing this education, or how can this be financed over the long term?” she asked.

Dr. Steen replied that he believed sustainability to be one of the key strengths of this model. “Retail-based health care is exploding in the U.S. The number of retail outlets offering a comprehensive list of services is going up all the time. These programs exist regardless of whether this trial was conducted or not.”

But Dr. Steen stressed that having an evidence base will be critically important.

“Validation is an enormous part of this evolution in retail-based health care – not only to figure out what works but also to engage payors and others in the process of supporting these interventions. I think the sustainability is there – it is sort of baked into the model – but research will be a huge part of cementing this in and helping us to understand what we should do.”

The study was funded by Kroger. Dr. Steen is a consultant for Sanofi and CEO and cofounder of High Enroll.

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

People who received personalized nutrition education in a series of sessions at their regular grocery store significantly improved adherence to a healthy diet, in a new “first-of-its-kind” study in which scientific researchers partnered with a large supermarket company.

In the SuperWIN study, participants were given individualized advice from supermarket-based dietitians using data on their own buying habits recorded on their supermarket loyalty cards. This was associated with an increased adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which emphasizes vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium and has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

One group of patients also received additional education about healthy eating and meal planning through online technologies, and this group showed even better adherence to the DASH diet.

The study was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology by Dylan Steen, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati.

“The SuperWIN study provides evidence for the benefit of delivering healthy-eating interventions at modern supermarkets and retail-based clinics,” Dr. Steen said. “It demonstrates the efficacy of dietary interventions harnessing the physical environment of the supermarket, the retail-based dietitians working within the store, and the purchasing data captured on the store’s loyalty cards.”

The study was conducted in partnership with Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which also operates a large chain of pharmacies and health clinics.

Dr. Steen said the study was addressing one of the biggest public health problems – unhealthy eating – with an innovative approach. “We need to think about how we can extend the reach of modern health care systems into communities and better deliver services right where people are; meet them where they live,” he said at an ACC press conference.

Commenting on the study at the press conference, Eileen Handberg, PhD, professor of medicine at University of Florida, Gainesville, and immediate past chair of the ACC Cardiovascular Care Team Council, said: “I am amazingly excited about this. There is so much potential here. We have never really taken advantage of the current explosion in retail-based health care before.”

Dr. Handberg suggested the study had major implications for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. “Little kids go shopping with their parents, so you have the ability here to change behavior from children on up if you can change the dynamic of the choices they make in the grocery store.”

In his presentation, Dr. Steen noted that, despite many longstanding guidelines on healthy eating, about 75% of Americans still have a poor-quality diet. This trial was conducted to see if a new approach could improve that situation. “If we change the environment in which we deliver dietary education, we can make a difference.”

The SuperWIN trial was conducted in 13 Kroger stores in Ohio and Kentucky. The study enrolled 267 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor from a primary care network who regularly shopped at one of the study stores. All participants also had to be willing to follow the DASH diet, which was taught at each educational session in the trial.

All participants received one “enhanced” medical nutrition therapy that was guided by the individual’s own dietary intake analytics.

They were then randomly assigned to one of three arms. The control group received no further education. The strategy 1 group received six additional teaching sessions in the supermarket aisles over a 3-month period. Each session was guided by updated individualized purchasing data provided to the dietitian and the participant. 

The strategy 2 group received the same six additional teaching sessions as strategy 1, but they also had some additional teaching on healthy eating and meal planning from a variety of online shopping tools, and nutrition and health care apps.  

“The supermarket analytics were automatically collected so the dietitians could tell what each person liked to eat, how much of each product they were buying and how much they were spending,” Dr. Steen explained.

COVID hit halfway through the trial, and 20 participants were withdrawn for their own safety as they could no longer visit the stores, but the trial continued with the rest of the participants with enhanced safety precautions. The overall analysis cohort was 247 participants.

The average age of the participants was mid-50s, around 70% were female, and most did not have a history of cardiovascular disease.

Eating habits were assessed by three 24-hour dietary recalls assessed at the start of the study and at 3 and 6 months. The DASH score, which is a measure of adherence to the DASH diet, was calculated from this information. The score can range from 0 to 90, with an increased score showing increased adherence.

In one analysis, the researchers compared the DASH scores from the two intervention groups together with the control group, and in a second analysis they compared the scores in the strategy 2 group with those in the strategy 1 group.

Before the pandemic there was “near 100%” attendance for the six visits over the 3-month study period, which Dr. Steen said he thought was “remarkable.” During the pandemic, attendance came down to around 80%.

Results showed that the DASH score increased in all three groups at 3 months, with stepwise increases corresponding to the intensity of the intervention. DASH scores increased by 5.8 points in the control group, by 8.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and by 12.4 points in the strategy 2 group.

DASH scores significantly differed between the two intervention groups and the control group (P = .02). “This shows that purchasing data–guided in-store tours do increase the efficacy of dietary education,” Dr. Steen said.

The difference in scores between the strategy 1 and strategy 2 groups was also significant (P = .01). “This shows online enhancements increase adherence to the DASH diet even further,” Dr. Steen commented

By 6 months, the scores had dropped off a little but were still increased from baseline: by 4.4 points in the control group, 6.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and 8.4 points in the strategy 2 group. “There was again a stepwise increase as the intervention intensified, but there was no longer a significant difference between the interventions and control,” Dr. Steen noted.

Secondary endpoints included blood pressure and body mass index. Systolic blood pressure decreased slightly in all three groups: by 2.8 mm Hg in the control group, 6.6 mm Hg in the strategy 1 group, and 5.7 mm Hg in the strategy 2 group. Body mass index was reduced by 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, but the between-group differences were not significant.

Dr. Steen said this is the first study of its kind to date in which scientific researchers collaborated with a large supermarket chain. He explained they also involved a primary care network so that health care utilization information will be available.

“We can the integrate retail-based health care information with traditional health care information. And we can start to look at downstream health care utilization and cost outcomes as well, which will be important as we start to think how to evolve the health care system,” he commented. “The hope is that we can get more scientists working with more retailers to really drive the evidence to shape the evolution of our health care system.”

Challenges ahead

Dr. Handberg pointed out there would be challenges in reaching the underserved population who do not shop at the major supermarkets. “We need to figure out how to get partnerships across the whole spectrum of grocery stores.”

She also noted that 3 months (the duration of the study intervention) was not much time to change the eating habits of a family. “Interventions may have to be a bit more intensive to get the change in blood pressure and weight that we would want to see.”

Dr Handberg hoped the major grocery store companies will see the opportunities in this approach. “Changing behavior is very complicated, and the key will be how to make people stick with the changes. But grocery stores are smart. They have got us going to their pharmacies, so getting us to see a dietitian is not that much of a stretch.”

Moderator of the ACC late-breaker session at which the study was presented, Pamela Morris, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who is also ACC annual scientific session chair, asked whether the approach could be sustained.

“I am thinking back to the barber shop study of blood pressure treatment and to my knowledge those PharmDs are no longer in those barbershops, taking blood pressures, counseling patients, and prescribing antihypertensives. So is Kroger maintaining a long-term commitment to providing this education, or how can this be financed over the long term?” she asked.

Dr. Steen replied that he believed sustainability to be one of the key strengths of this model. “Retail-based health care is exploding in the U.S. The number of retail outlets offering a comprehensive list of services is going up all the time. These programs exist regardless of whether this trial was conducted or not.”

But Dr. Steen stressed that having an evidence base will be critically important.

“Validation is an enormous part of this evolution in retail-based health care – not only to figure out what works but also to engage payors and others in the process of supporting these interventions. I think the sustainability is there – it is sort of baked into the model – but research will be a huge part of cementing this in and helping us to understand what we should do.”

The study was funded by Kroger. Dr. Steen is a consultant for Sanofi and CEO and cofounder of High Enroll.

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

People who received personalized nutrition education in a series of sessions at their regular grocery store significantly improved adherence to a healthy diet, in a new “first-of-its-kind” study in which scientific researchers partnered with a large supermarket company.

In the SuperWIN study, participants were given individualized advice from supermarket-based dietitians using data on their own buying habits recorded on their supermarket loyalty cards. This was associated with an increased adherence to the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, which emphasizes vegetables, fruits and whole grains while limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar, and sodium and has been shown to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

One group of patients also received additional education about healthy eating and meal planning through online technologies, and this group showed even better adherence to the DASH diet.

The study was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology by Dylan Steen, MD, adjunct associate professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati.

“The SuperWIN study provides evidence for the benefit of delivering healthy-eating interventions at modern supermarkets and retail-based clinics,” Dr. Steen said. “It demonstrates the efficacy of dietary interventions harnessing the physical environment of the supermarket, the retail-based dietitians working within the store, and the purchasing data captured on the store’s loyalty cards.”

The study was conducted in partnership with Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, which also operates a large chain of pharmacies and health clinics.

Dr. Steen said the study was addressing one of the biggest public health problems – unhealthy eating – with an innovative approach. “We need to think about how we can extend the reach of modern health care systems into communities and better deliver services right where people are; meet them where they live,” he said at an ACC press conference.

Commenting on the study at the press conference, Eileen Handberg, PhD, professor of medicine at University of Florida, Gainesville, and immediate past chair of the ACC Cardiovascular Care Team Council, said: “I am amazingly excited about this. There is so much potential here. We have never really taken advantage of the current explosion in retail-based health care before.”

Dr. Handberg suggested the study had major implications for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. “Little kids go shopping with their parents, so you have the ability here to change behavior from children on up if you can change the dynamic of the choices they make in the grocery store.”

In his presentation, Dr. Steen noted that, despite many longstanding guidelines on healthy eating, about 75% of Americans still have a poor-quality diet. This trial was conducted to see if a new approach could improve that situation. “If we change the environment in which we deliver dietary education, we can make a difference.”

The SuperWIN trial was conducted in 13 Kroger stores in Ohio and Kentucky. The study enrolled 267 people with at least one cardiovascular risk factor from a primary care network who regularly shopped at one of the study stores. All participants also had to be willing to follow the DASH diet, which was taught at each educational session in the trial.

All participants received one “enhanced” medical nutrition therapy that was guided by the individual’s own dietary intake analytics.

They were then randomly assigned to one of three arms. The control group received no further education. The strategy 1 group received six additional teaching sessions in the supermarket aisles over a 3-month period. Each session was guided by updated individualized purchasing data provided to the dietitian and the participant. 

The strategy 2 group received the same six additional teaching sessions as strategy 1, but they also had some additional teaching on healthy eating and meal planning from a variety of online shopping tools, and nutrition and health care apps.  

“The supermarket analytics were automatically collected so the dietitians could tell what each person liked to eat, how much of each product they were buying and how much they were spending,” Dr. Steen explained.

COVID hit halfway through the trial, and 20 participants were withdrawn for their own safety as they could no longer visit the stores, but the trial continued with the rest of the participants with enhanced safety precautions. The overall analysis cohort was 247 participants.

The average age of the participants was mid-50s, around 70% were female, and most did not have a history of cardiovascular disease.

Eating habits were assessed by three 24-hour dietary recalls assessed at the start of the study and at 3 and 6 months. The DASH score, which is a measure of adherence to the DASH diet, was calculated from this information. The score can range from 0 to 90, with an increased score showing increased adherence.

In one analysis, the researchers compared the DASH scores from the two intervention groups together with the control group, and in a second analysis they compared the scores in the strategy 2 group with those in the strategy 1 group.

Before the pandemic there was “near 100%” attendance for the six visits over the 3-month study period, which Dr. Steen said he thought was “remarkable.” During the pandemic, attendance came down to around 80%.

Results showed that the DASH score increased in all three groups at 3 months, with stepwise increases corresponding to the intensity of the intervention. DASH scores increased by 5.8 points in the control group, by 8.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and by 12.4 points in the strategy 2 group.

DASH scores significantly differed between the two intervention groups and the control group (P = .02). “This shows that purchasing data–guided in-store tours do increase the efficacy of dietary education,” Dr. Steen said.

The difference in scores between the strategy 1 and strategy 2 groups was also significant (P = .01). “This shows online enhancements increase adherence to the DASH diet even further,” Dr. Steen commented

By 6 months, the scores had dropped off a little but were still increased from baseline: by 4.4 points in the control group, 6.6 points in the strategy 1 group, and 8.4 points in the strategy 2 group. “There was again a stepwise increase as the intervention intensified, but there was no longer a significant difference between the interventions and control,” Dr. Steen noted.

Secondary endpoints included blood pressure and body mass index. Systolic blood pressure decreased slightly in all three groups: by 2.8 mm Hg in the control group, 6.6 mm Hg in the strategy 1 group, and 5.7 mm Hg in the strategy 2 group. Body mass index was reduced by 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8, respectively, but the between-group differences were not significant.

Dr. Steen said this is the first study of its kind to date in which scientific researchers collaborated with a large supermarket chain. He explained they also involved a primary care network so that health care utilization information will be available.

“We can the integrate retail-based health care information with traditional health care information. And we can start to look at downstream health care utilization and cost outcomes as well, which will be important as we start to think how to evolve the health care system,” he commented. “The hope is that we can get more scientists working with more retailers to really drive the evidence to shape the evolution of our health care system.”

Challenges ahead

Dr. Handberg pointed out there would be challenges in reaching the underserved population who do not shop at the major supermarkets. “We need to figure out how to get partnerships across the whole spectrum of grocery stores.”

She also noted that 3 months (the duration of the study intervention) was not much time to change the eating habits of a family. “Interventions may have to be a bit more intensive to get the change in blood pressure and weight that we would want to see.”

Dr Handberg hoped the major grocery store companies will see the opportunities in this approach. “Changing behavior is very complicated, and the key will be how to make people stick with the changes. But grocery stores are smart. They have got us going to their pharmacies, so getting us to see a dietitian is not that much of a stretch.”

Moderator of the ACC late-breaker session at which the study was presented, Pamela Morris, MD, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who is also ACC annual scientific session chair, asked whether the approach could be sustained.

“I am thinking back to the barber shop study of blood pressure treatment and to my knowledge those PharmDs are no longer in those barbershops, taking blood pressures, counseling patients, and prescribing antihypertensives. So is Kroger maintaining a long-term commitment to providing this education, or how can this be financed over the long term?” she asked.

Dr. Steen replied that he believed sustainability to be one of the key strengths of this model. “Retail-based health care is exploding in the U.S. The number of retail outlets offering a comprehensive list of services is going up all the time. These programs exist regardless of whether this trial was conducted or not.”

But Dr. Steen stressed that having an evidence base will be critically important.

“Validation is an enormous part of this evolution in retail-based health care – not only to figure out what works but also to engage payors and others in the process of supporting these interventions. I think the sustainability is there – it is sort of baked into the model – but research will be a huge part of cementing this in and helping us to understand what we should do.”

The study was funded by Kroger. Dr. Steen is a consultant for Sanofi and CEO and cofounder of High Enroll.

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

WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who remained on treatment with the investigational agent mavacamten for a median of 62 weeks continued to show the same level of safe response to the drug as seen after the first 30 weeks on treatment in the pivotal trial for this agent.

The new findings from longer-term treatment bode well for mavacamten. That’s because if the drug is used in routine practice to avoid the need for surgery or an invasive intervention to reduce blockage of a patient’s left ventricular outflow tract, the duration of mavacamten treatment will likely need to continue for many years and even for decades, said Florian Rader, MD, who presented the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“In practice, mavacamten will probably be used for many, many years, especially as it replaces septal-reduction therapy, so we need long-term data,” noted Dr. Rader during a press briefing on his report. “I’m very happy with the long-term data” in the follow-up study.

The Food and Drug Administration is currently considering whether to approve mavacamten for routine marketing to treat patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), with a decision expected by the end of April 2022.

The study Dr. Rader reported followed 231 patients with symptomatic oHCM who had completed the 30-week pivotal trial of mavacamten, EXPLORER-HCM, and opted to continue on open-label extended treatment with mavacamten, either continuing the treatment they started during the trial or crossing over to receive mavacamten after receiving placebo during the trial.

The major findings from EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) were that continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks maintained the safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase, said Dr. Rader, codirector of the Clinic for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Aortopathies at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

‘Almost revolutionary’

Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for treating oHCM, commented Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis. “Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” said Dr. Guglin during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“All of us who care for patients with oHCM have looked forward to having a disease-specific therapy. It is encouraging to see that the safety and efficacy remained high with long-term follow-up,” commented Kyle W. Klarich, MD, a professor and cardiologist who specializes in treating patients with HCM at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Mavacamten is a direct myosin inhibitor that reduces the excess number of myosin-actin cross bridges that form in patients with oHCM, and thereby directly targets the pathophysiology that underlies the disorder, explained Dr. Rader.

The patients on mavacamten included in the long-term extension reported by Dr. Rader averaged 60 years of age, and 61% were men. They averaged a 35.6–mm Hg drop in their resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient after 48 weeks on treatment, and a 32.8–mm Hg reduction after 84 weeks. When the investigators measured their LVOT gradient during a valsalva maneuver, their reductions from baseline averaged 45.3 mm Hg after 48 weeks and 46.4 mm Hg after 84 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Resting left ventricular ejection fraction also fell, by an average of 7.0 percentage points from baseline after 48 weeks, and by an average of 9.0 percentage points after 84 weeks. After 48 weeks on treatment, 68% of patients had at least a one-class improvement from baseline in their New York Heart Association functional class.

The safety results showed that most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate, and about 2% of patients had a serious drug-related adverse event. Ten of the 231 patients discontinued mavacamten because of a treated-related adverse event.

EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE were sponsored by MyoKardia, the company that is developing mavacamten and which is now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Rader has been a consultant to MyoKardia as well as to Medtronic and ReCor. Dr. Guglin and Dr. Klarich had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who remained on treatment with the investigational agent mavacamten for a median of 62 weeks continued to show the same level of safe response to the drug as seen after the first 30 weeks on treatment in the pivotal trial for this agent.

The new findings from longer-term treatment bode well for mavacamten. That’s because if the drug is used in routine practice to avoid the need for surgery or an invasive intervention to reduce blockage of a patient’s left ventricular outflow tract, the duration of mavacamten treatment will likely need to continue for many years and even for decades, said Florian Rader, MD, who presented the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“In practice, mavacamten will probably be used for many, many years, especially as it replaces septal-reduction therapy, so we need long-term data,” noted Dr. Rader during a press briefing on his report. “I’m very happy with the long-term data” in the follow-up study.

The Food and Drug Administration is currently considering whether to approve mavacamten for routine marketing to treat patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), with a decision expected by the end of April 2022.

The study Dr. Rader reported followed 231 patients with symptomatic oHCM who had completed the 30-week pivotal trial of mavacamten, EXPLORER-HCM, and opted to continue on open-label extended treatment with mavacamten, either continuing the treatment they started during the trial or crossing over to receive mavacamten after receiving placebo during the trial.

The major findings from EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) were that continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks maintained the safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase, said Dr. Rader, codirector of the Clinic for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Aortopathies at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

‘Almost revolutionary’

Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for treating oHCM, commented Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis. “Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” said Dr. Guglin during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“All of us who care for patients with oHCM have looked forward to having a disease-specific therapy. It is encouraging to see that the safety and efficacy remained high with long-term follow-up,” commented Kyle W. Klarich, MD, a professor and cardiologist who specializes in treating patients with HCM at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Mavacamten is a direct myosin inhibitor that reduces the excess number of myosin-actin cross bridges that form in patients with oHCM, and thereby directly targets the pathophysiology that underlies the disorder, explained Dr. Rader.

The patients on mavacamten included in the long-term extension reported by Dr. Rader averaged 60 years of age, and 61% were men. They averaged a 35.6–mm Hg drop in their resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient after 48 weeks on treatment, and a 32.8–mm Hg reduction after 84 weeks. When the investigators measured their LVOT gradient during a valsalva maneuver, their reductions from baseline averaged 45.3 mm Hg after 48 weeks and 46.4 mm Hg after 84 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Resting left ventricular ejection fraction also fell, by an average of 7.0 percentage points from baseline after 48 weeks, and by an average of 9.0 percentage points after 84 weeks. After 48 weeks on treatment, 68% of patients had at least a one-class improvement from baseline in their New York Heart Association functional class.

The safety results showed that most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate, and about 2% of patients had a serious drug-related adverse event. Ten of the 231 patients discontinued mavacamten because of a treated-related adverse event.

EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE were sponsored by MyoKardia, the company that is developing mavacamten and which is now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Rader has been a consultant to MyoKardia as well as to Medtronic and ReCor. Dr. Guglin and Dr. Klarich had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who remained on treatment with the investigational agent mavacamten for a median of 62 weeks continued to show the same level of safe response to the drug as seen after the first 30 weeks on treatment in the pivotal trial for this agent.

The new findings from longer-term treatment bode well for mavacamten. That’s because if the drug is used in routine practice to avoid the need for surgery or an invasive intervention to reduce blockage of a patient’s left ventricular outflow tract, the duration of mavacamten treatment will likely need to continue for many years and even for decades, said Florian Rader, MD, who presented the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“In practice, mavacamten will probably be used for many, many years, especially as it replaces septal-reduction therapy, so we need long-term data,” noted Dr. Rader during a press briefing on his report. “I’m very happy with the long-term data” in the follow-up study.

The Food and Drug Administration is currently considering whether to approve mavacamten for routine marketing to treat patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), with a decision expected by the end of April 2022.

The study Dr. Rader reported followed 231 patients with symptomatic oHCM who had completed the 30-week pivotal trial of mavacamten, EXPLORER-HCM, and opted to continue on open-label extended treatment with mavacamten, either continuing the treatment they started during the trial or crossing over to receive mavacamten after receiving placebo during the trial.

The major findings from EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) were that continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks maintained the safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase, said Dr. Rader, codirector of the Clinic for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Aortopathies at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

‘Almost revolutionary’

Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for treating oHCM, commented Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis. “Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” said Dr. Guglin during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“All of us who care for patients with oHCM have looked forward to having a disease-specific therapy. It is encouraging to see that the safety and efficacy remained high with long-term follow-up,” commented Kyle W. Klarich, MD, a professor and cardiologist who specializes in treating patients with HCM at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Mavacamten is a direct myosin inhibitor that reduces the excess number of myosin-actin cross bridges that form in patients with oHCM, and thereby directly targets the pathophysiology that underlies the disorder, explained Dr. Rader.

The patients on mavacamten included in the long-term extension reported by Dr. Rader averaged 60 years of age, and 61% were men. They averaged a 35.6–mm Hg drop in their resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient after 48 weeks on treatment, and a 32.8–mm Hg reduction after 84 weeks. When the investigators measured their LVOT gradient during a valsalva maneuver, their reductions from baseline averaged 45.3 mm Hg after 48 weeks and 46.4 mm Hg after 84 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Resting left ventricular ejection fraction also fell, by an average of 7.0 percentage points from baseline after 48 weeks, and by an average of 9.0 percentage points after 84 weeks. After 48 weeks on treatment, 68% of patients had at least a one-class improvement from baseline in their New York Heart Association functional class.

The safety results showed that most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate, and about 2% of patients had a serious drug-related adverse event. Ten of the 231 patients discontinued mavacamten because of a treated-related adverse event.

EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE were sponsored by MyoKardia, the company that is developing mavacamten and which is now owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Rader has been a consultant to MyoKardia as well as to Medtronic and ReCor. Dr. Guglin and Dr. Klarich had no disclosures.