All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

I’m not fanatical about dragging stable patients in. If someone is doing fine, having them come in once a year is all I ask. They have better things to do, and I have patients who need my attention more.

Of course, there will always be those who abuse this. They try to drag it out to 18 months, sometimes 2 years. I don’t think having patients drop in for 10-15 minutes once a year to make sure they’re still alive is unreasonable, but maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, during the last 2 years I’ve kind of let it slide a bit, but I think everyone has.

Last week a lady I see for an annual check-in called to make an appointment. She’d been dodging my secretary’s reminders for a few months, so I cut her migraine refill from a 90-day supply to 30 days to encourage her. She called, made an appointment for the following morning, and asked that I send in a refill for 90 days because otherwise her insurance won’t cover it. So, trying to be nice, I did, figuring she was on the schedule now.

Of course, she didn’t show up the next morning. She didn’t cancel, or call in with “I’m sick” or “sorry, I spaced on it” or some other issue. She just no-showed. One of the many banes of outpatient medicine.

Normally I avoid looking at my patients’ online presence, but I got curious. This lady has often suggested I check out her social media account for financial and real estate tips. I never had, until that morning.

Her Twitter account for the last several days was full of reminders to her followers for an in-person seminar on real estate flipping that she was hosting, which, surprisingly, started at the exact time as her appointment with me was supposed to.

I’m pretty sure she ain’t that stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing, and never planned on keeping the appointment. Now she had a 90-day supply of meds and no incentive to follow up with me before then.

Certainly, it’s not the worst thing. The drug involved isn’t controlled, and in 24 years I’ve had patients do far worse.

But it still changes the trust factor in the medical relationship. She isn’t getting another 90-day refill without coming in, and if she has to pay cash for 30 days that’s her problem, not mine. She can avoid that by calling in to schedule before then. Though I doubt she will.

I try to work with my patients. I really do. Her behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but (at least to me) doesn’t cross the line to firing her from the practice.

But it does make it trickier to be her doctor, since I now know that she isn’t always truthful with me and my staff.

And that sort of thing is important in this field.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not fanatical about dragging stable patients in. If someone is doing fine, having them come in once a year is all I ask. They have better things to do, and I have patients who need my attention more.

Of course, there will always be those who abuse this. They try to drag it out to 18 months, sometimes 2 years. I don’t think having patients drop in for 10-15 minutes once a year to make sure they’re still alive is unreasonable, but maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, during the last 2 years I’ve kind of let it slide a bit, but I think everyone has.

Last week a lady I see for an annual check-in called to make an appointment. She’d been dodging my secretary’s reminders for a few months, so I cut her migraine refill from a 90-day supply to 30 days to encourage her. She called, made an appointment for the following morning, and asked that I send in a refill for 90 days because otherwise her insurance won’t cover it. So, trying to be nice, I did, figuring she was on the schedule now.

Of course, she didn’t show up the next morning. She didn’t cancel, or call in with “I’m sick” or “sorry, I spaced on it” or some other issue. She just no-showed. One of the many banes of outpatient medicine.

Normally I avoid looking at my patients’ online presence, but I got curious. This lady has often suggested I check out her social media account for financial and real estate tips. I never had, until that morning.

Her Twitter account for the last several days was full of reminders to her followers for an in-person seminar on real estate flipping that she was hosting, which, surprisingly, started at the exact time as her appointment with me was supposed to.

I’m pretty sure she ain’t that stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing, and never planned on keeping the appointment. Now she had a 90-day supply of meds and no incentive to follow up with me before then.

Certainly, it’s not the worst thing. The drug involved isn’t controlled, and in 24 years I’ve had patients do far worse.

But it still changes the trust factor in the medical relationship. She isn’t getting another 90-day refill without coming in, and if she has to pay cash for 30 days that’s her problem, not mine. She can avoid that by calling in to schedule before then. Though I doubt she will.

I try to work with my patients. I really do. Her behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but (at least to me) doesn’t cross the line to firing her from the practice.

But it does make it trickier to be her doctor, since I now know that she isn’t always truthful with me and my staff.

And that sort of thing is important in this field.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not fanatical about dragging stable patients in. If someone is doing fine, having them come in once a year is all I ask. They have better things to do, and I have patients who need my attention more.

Of course, there will always be those who abuse this. They try to drag it out to 18 months, sometimes 2 years. I don’t think having patients drop in for 10-15 minutes once a year to make sure they’re still alive is unreasonable, but maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, during the last 2 years I’ve kind of let it slide a bit, but I think everyone has.

Last week a lady I see for an annual check-in called to make an appointment. She’d been dodging my secretary’s reminders for a few months, so I cut her migraine refill from a 90-day supply to 30 days to encourage her. She called, made an appointment for the following morning, and asked that I send in a refill for 90 days because otherwise her insurance won’t cover it. So, trying to be nice, I did, figuring she was on the schedule now.

Of course, she didn’t show up the next morning. She didn’t cancel, or call in with “I’m sick” or “sorry, I spaced on it” or some other issue. She just no-showed. One of the many banes of outpatient medicine.

Normally I avoid looking at my patients’ online presence, but I got curious. This lady has often suggested I check out her social media account for financial and real estate tips. I never had, until that morning.

Her Twitter account for the last several days was full of reminders to her followers for an in-person seminar on real estate flipping that she was hosting, which, surprisingly, started at the exact time as her appointment with me was supposed to.

I’m pretty sure she ain’t that stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing, and never planned on keeping the appointment. Now she had a 90-day supply of meds and no incentive to follow up with me before then.

Certainly, it’s not the worst thing. The drug involved isn’t controlled, and in 24 years I’ve had patients do far worse.

But it still changes the trust factor in the medical relationship. She isn’t getting another 90-day refill without coming in, and if she has to pay cash for 30 days that’s her problem, not mine. She can avoid that by calling in to schedule before then. Though I doubt she will.

I try to work with my patients. I really do. Her behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but (at least to me) doesn’t cross the line to firing her from the practice.

But it does make it trickier to be her doctor, since I now know that she isn’t always truthful with me and my staff.

And that sort of thing is important in this field.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In a specialty clinic, dupilumab (Dupixent) injections significantly improved symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on provisional data from more than 100 adults.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a significant burden among working-age adults. Symptom control remains a challenge for many of these patients, and the cost in lost productivity and health care consumption can be substantial, write Rik J.L. van der Lans, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Dupilumab, a biologic that targets components of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, represents a new option that has shown effectiveness in clinical trials for regulatory approval, they said.

A new observational study tests dupilumab in patients who met criteria for biological treatment proposed in a recent major systematic review. The findings were published in the journal Allergy.

In the study, the researchers identified 131 adults older than 18 years (mean age 51.7) with CRSwNP treated at a single tertiary care center. Participants received 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for at least 12 weeks.

The primary outcomes were scores on several measures, including the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, scale of 0-110), the bilateral Nasal Polyp Score (NPS, scale of 0-8), and the Sniffin’ Sticks-12 identification test (SSIT-12, scale of 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia).

The mean scores on all three outcomes improved significantly from baseline to both 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Scores on the SNOT-22 improved from 52.4 at baseline to 18.5 and 16.8 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. NPS improved from 5.4 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.0, respectively. SSIT-12 scores improved from 3.6 at baseline to 7.3 and 8.3, respectively.

At baseline, 95.8% of the patients had uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis, but at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% were uncontrolled.

Approximately half of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but these were “mild and decreased in occurrence and intensity throughout treatment,” the researchers say.

For patients with a strong response, the researchers also tested an extension of the interval between doses to 4 weeks and 6 weeks, in a provisional indication of continued established control at these timepoints.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for selection bias, and data from only the first patient cohort, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the real-life context, standardized indications, and long-term follow up for almost a year, they said.

More research is needed on nonacademic patient cohorts, but the current data confirm the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add-on for difficult-to-treat CRSwNP, they concluded. The findings also validate the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) inclusion criteria for biologic treatment, they said.

The new study is important because of the need for verification of results from randomized controlled trials using real-world data, Dr. Van der Lans told this news organization.

“For example, differences in treatment efficacy might result from differing indication criteria, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the RCTs might have excluded patients one would encounter in daily practice,” he said. “With our prospective observational cohort, we are seeking to verify efficacy, monitor pharmacovigilance, and evaluate and advance the indication criteria and positioning of biologicals registered for CRSwNP, such as dupilumab.”

These cross-sectional results suggest dupilumab is more effective in preventing possibly harmful escape treatments, such as oral corticosteroids and/or surgery, than reported by the registration trials.

“Additionally, it appears possible to maintain established CRS-control during response-dependent, stepwise, interdose interval prolongation of up to 6 weeks, which is officially an off-label dosing interval,” he said. “This would greatly benefit patients’ treatment burden and direct costs,” he said. However, both findings require corroboration by anticipated longitudinal results in 2022, he noted.

The key message for clinicians in practice: “Biologicals like dupilumab are a potent and promising treatment for severe CRSwNP when conventional medical and surgical therapy fails,” he emphasized.

Looking ahead, important research objectives include head-on comparison studies of the diverse biological agents, establishing biomarkers to guide preferential therapy, and evaluating the economics of biologics compared with conventional therapy, Dr. Van der Lans added. Such research is vital not only for improving patient-centered care but to sustain the use of biologicals in a health-economic perspective.

One of the greatest criticisms of biologic therapy for CRSwNP is cost, particularly in a setting of ever-increasing health care costs. A recent review noted the average cost per year is greater than $30,000.
 

Real-life study verifies effectiveness

“As the authors pointed out, this is a real-life, prospective observational cohort with a decently large size, evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of add-on dupilumab,” said Seong H. Cho, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview.

“Dupilumab is the first FDA-approved biologic to treat severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps based on two phase 3 clinical trials,” said Dr. Cho, who was not involved with the study. “It has been more than 2 years since dupilumab was approved for severe CRSwNP by the FDA and EMA. This real-life, prospective, observational study with a decent size verified the efficacy of dupilumab as an add-on treatment when used with a proper indication such as EPOS2020 indication criteria.

“I am not surprised by the efficacy of dupilumab on severe CRSwNP, based on my clinical experience. My clinical observation is similar to the results of this study. This study verifies that dupilumab is highly efficacious in treating refractory and severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting by improving all subjective and objective clinical outcomes such as SNOT-22, NPS, and smell test score,” he said. The study also confirms that a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation from every 2-4 weeks for CRSwNP patients with good response should be a consideration for clinical practice, he added. 

The cost-effectiveness of dupilumab is the main barrier to more consistent use, Dr. Cho said. “There is no evidence that dupilumab can change the course of the disease, and we don’t know how long patients need to be on this drug. Therefore, nasal polyps need to be refractory and severe enough to use dupilumab and other biologics,” he explained.

Consequently, proper indication criteria, such as the EPOS2020 indication criteria for biologics, should be established before initiating dupilumab, Dr. Cho noted.

“Generally, endoscopic sinus surgery would be preferred in sinus-surgery naive CRSwNP patients, unless surgery is contraindicated or refused by patients because of cost-effectiveness rather than the superior efficacy,” he said. “If surgery fails, then dupilumab can be considered. In addition, proper evaluation of nasal polyp severity would be important.”

“One should establish an objective NPS by endoscopic exam before initiation of dupilumab. This baseline score would be an important marker to assess the efficacy of dupilumab in the course of treatment.”

Monitoring of the NPS together with the patient’s symptom improvement would be essential to implementing a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation to reduce the cost, he emphasized. 

“The most crucial additional research is establishing suitable biomarkers for the response of dupilumab and other biologics,” said Dr. Cho. “Overall, the performance of dupilumab seems to be good. But there are patients unresponsive to dupilumab, even more to other recently FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP.”

Blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide can be a good biomarker for type 2 asthma, Dr. Cho added. “Still, there is no evidence that these biomarkers are decent for CRSwNP, even though CRSwNP is mostly considered as type 2 disease. Therefore, it would be essential to find promising biomarkers for severe CRSwNP.”

Dr. Van der Lans disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Sanofi and Novartis. The patient registry from which the study population was drawn is cofunded by Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Cho has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a specialty clinic, dupilumab (Dupixent) injections significantly improved symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on provisional data from more than 100 adults.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a significant burden among working-age adults. Symptom control remains a challenge for many of these patients, and the cost in lost productivity and health care consumption can be substantial, write Rik J.L. van der Lans, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Dupilumab, a biologic that targets components of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, represents a new option that has shown effectiveness in clinical trials for regulatory approval, they said.

A new observational study tests dupilumab in patients who met criteria for biological treatment proposed in a recent major systematic review. The findings were published in the journal Allergy.

In the study, the researchers identified 131 adults older than 18 years (mean age 51.7) with CRSwNP treated at a single tertiary care center. Participants received 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for at least 12 weeks.

The primary outcomes were scores on several measures, including the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, scale of 0-110), the bilateral Nasal Polyp Score (NPS, scale of 0-8), and the Sniffin’ Sticks-12 identification test (SSIT-12, scale of 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia).

The mean scores on all three outcomes improved significantly from baseline to both 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Scores on the SNOT-22 improved from 52.4 at baseline to 18.5 and 16.8 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. NPS improved from 5.4 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.0, respectively. SSIT-12 scores improved from 3.6 at baseline to 7.3 and 8.3, respectively.

At baseline, 95.8% of the patients had uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis, but at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% were uncontrolled.

Approximately half of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but these were “mild and decreased in occurrence and intensity throughout treatment,” the researchers say.

For patients with a strong response, the researchers also tested an extension of the interval between doses to 4 weeks and 6 weeks, in a provisional indication of continued established control at these timepoints.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for selection bias, and data from only the first patient cohort, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the real-life context, standardized indications, and long-term follow up for almost a year, they said.

More research is needed on nonacademic patient cohorts, but the current data confirm the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add-on for difficult-to-treat CRSwNP, they concluded. The findings also validate the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) inclusion criteria for biologic treatment, they said.

The new study is important because of the need for verification of results from randomized controlled trials using real-world data, Dr. Van der Lans told this news organization.

“For example, differences in treatment efficacy might result from differing indication criteria, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the RCTs might have excluded patients one would encounter in daily practice,” he said. “With our prospective observational cohort, we are seeking to verify efficacy, monitor pharmacovigilance, and evaluate and advance the indication criteria and positioning of biologicals registered for CRSwNP, such as dupilumab.”

These cross-sectional results suggest dupilumab is more effective in preventing possibly harmful escape treatments, such as oral corticosteroids and/or surgery, than reported by the registration trials.

“Additionally, it appears possible to maintain established CRS-control during response-dependent, stepwise, interdose interval prolongation of up to 6 weeks, which is officially an off-label dosing interval,” he said. “This would greatly benefit patients’ treatment burden and direct costs,” he said. However, both findings require corroboration by anticipated longitudinal results in 2022, he noted.

The key message for clinicians in practice: “Biologicals like dupilumab are a potent and promising treatment for severe CRSwNP when conventional medical and surgical therapy fails,” he emphasized.

Looking ahead, important research objectives include head-on comparison studies of the diverse biological agents, establishing biomarkers to guide preferential therapy, and evaluating the economics of biologics compared with conventional therapy, Dr. Van der Lans added. Such research is vital not only for improving patient-centered care but to sustain the use of biologicals in a health-economic perspective.

One of the greatest criticisms of biologic therapy for CRSwNP is cost, particularly in a setting of ever-increasing health care costs. A recent review noted the average cost per year is greater than $30,000.
 

Real-life study verifies effectiveness

“As the authors pointed out, this is a real-life, prospective observational cohort with a decently large size, evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of add-on dupilumab,” said Seong H. Cho, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview.

“Dupilumab is the first FDA-approved biologic to treat severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps based on two phase 3 clinical trials,” said Dr. Cho, who was not involved with the study. “It has been more than 2 years since dupilumab was approved for severe CRSwNP by the FDA and EMA. This real-life, prospective, observational study with a decent size verified the efficacy of dupilumab as an add-on treatment when used with a proper indication such as EPOS2020 indication criteria.

“I am not surprised by the efficacy of dupilumab on severe CRSwNP, based on my clinical experience. My clinical observation is similar to the results of this study. This study verifies that dupilumab is highly efficacious in treating refractory and severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting by improving all subjective and objective clinical outcomes such as SNOT-22, NPS, and smell test score,” he said. The study also confirms that a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation from every 2-4 weeks for CRSwNP patients with good response should be a consideration for clinical practice, he added. 

The cost-effectiveness of dupilumab is the main barrier to more consistent use, Dr. Cho said. “There is no evidence that dupilumab can change the course of the disease, and we don’t know how long patients need to be on this drug. Therefore, nasal polyps need to be refractory and severe enough to use dupilumab and other biologics,” he explained.

Consequently, proper indication criteria, such as the EPOS2020 indication criteria for biologics, should be established before initiating dupilumab, Dr. Cho noted.

“Generally, endoscopic sinus surgery would be preferred in sinus-surgery naive CRSwNP patients, unless surgery is contraindicated or refused by patients because of cost-effectiveness rather than the superior efficacy,” he said. “If surgery fails, then dupilumab can be considered. In addition, proper evaluation of nasal polyp severity would be important.”

“One should establish an objective NPS by endoscopic exam before initiation of dupilumab. This baseline score would be an important marker to assess the efficacy of dupilumab in the course of treatment.”

Monitoring of the NPS together with the patient’s symptom improvement would be essential to implementing a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation to reduce the cost, he emphasized. 

“The most crucial additional research is establishing suitable biomarkers for the response of dupilumab and other biologics,” said Dr. Cho. “Overall, the performance of dupilumab seems to be good. But there are patients unresponsive to dupilumab, even more to other recently FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP.”

Blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide can be a good biomarker for type 2 asthma, Dr. Cho added. “Still, there is no evidence that these biomarkers are decent for CRSwNP, even though CRSwNP is mostly considered as type 2 disease. Therefore, it would be essential to find promising biomarkers for severe CRSwNP.”

Dr. Van der Lans disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Sanofi and Novartis. The patient registry from which the study population was drawn is cofunded by Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Cho has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a specialty clinic, dupilumab (Dupixent) injections significantly improved symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on provisional data from more than 100 adults.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a significant burden among working-age adults. Symptom control remains a challenge for many of these patients, and the cost in lost productivity and health care consumption can be substantial, write Rik J.L. van der Lans, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Dupilumab, a biologic that targets components of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, represents a new option that has shown effectiveness in clinical trials for regulatory approval, they said.

A new observational study tests dupilumab in patients who met criteria for biological treatment proposed in a recent major systematic review. The findings were published in the journal Allergy.

In the study, the researchers identified 131 adults older than 18 years (mean age 51.7) with CRSwNP treated at a single tertiary care center. Participants received 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for at least 12 weeks.

The primary outcomes were scores on several measures, including the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, scale of 0-110), the bilateral Nasal Polyp Score (NPS, scale of 0-8), and the Sniffin’ Sticks-12 identification test (SSIT-12, scale of 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia).

The mean scores on all three outcomes improved significantly from baseline to both 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Scores on the SNOT-22 improved from 52.4 at baseline to 18.5 and 16.8 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. NPS improved from 5.4 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.0, respectively. SSIT-12 scores improved from 3.6 at baseline to 7.3 and 8.3, respectively.

At baseline, 95.8% of the patients had uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis, but at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% were uncontrolled.

Approximately half of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but these were “mild and decreased in occurrence and intensity throughout treatment,” the researchers say.

For patients with a strong response, the researchers also tested an extension of the interval between doses to 4 weeks and 6 weeks, in a provisional indication of continued established control at these timepoints.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for selection bias, and data from only the first patient cohort, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the real-life context, standardized indications, and long-term follow up for almost a year, they said.

More research is needed on nonacademic patient cohorts, but the current data confirm the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add-on for difficult-to-treat CRSwNP, they concluded. The findings also validate the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) inclusion criteria for biologic treatment, they said.

The new study is important because of the need for verification of results from randomized controlled trials using real-world data, Dr. Van der Lans told this news organization.

“For example, differences in treatment efficacy might result from differing indication criteria, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the RCTs might have excluded patients one would encounter in daily practice,” he said. “With our prospective observational cohort, we are seeking to verify efficacy, monitor pharmacovigilance, and evaluate and advance the indication criteria and positioning of biologicals registered for CRSwNP, such as dupilumab.”

These cross-sectional results suggest dupilumab is more effective in preventing possibly harmful escape treatments, such as oral corticosteroids and/or surgery, than reported by the registration trials.

“Additionally, it appears possible to maintain established CRS-control during response-dependent, stepwise, interdose interval prolongation of up to 6 weeks, which is officially an off-label dosing interval,” he said. “This would greatly benefit patients’ treatment burden and direct costs,” he said. However, both findings require corroboration by anticipated longitudinal results in 2022, he noted.

The key message for clinicians in practice: “Biologicals like dupilumab are a potent and promising treatment for severe CRSwNP when conventional medical and surgical therapy fails,” he emphasized.

Looking ahead, important research objectives include head-on comparison studies of the diverse biological agents, establishing biomarkers to guide preferential therapy, and evaluating the economics of biologics compared with conventional therapy, Dr. Van der Lans added. Such research is vital not only for improving patient-centered care but to sustain the use of biologicals in a health-economic perspective.

One of the greatest criticisms of biologic therapy for CRSwNP is cost, particularly in a setting of ever-increasing health care costs. A recent review noted the average cost per year is greater than $30,000.
 

Real-life study verifies effectiveness

“As the authors pointed out, this is a real-life, prospective observational cohort with a decently large size, evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of add-on dupilumab,” said Seong H. Cho, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview.

“Dupilumab is the first FDA-approved biologic to treat severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps based on two phase 3 clinical trials,” said Dr. Cho, who was not involved with the study. “It has been more than 2 years since dupilumab was approved for severe CRSwNP by the FDA and EMA. This real-life, prospective, observational study with a decent size verified the efficacy of dupilumab as an add-on treatment when used with a proper indication such as EPOS2020 indication criteria.

“I am not surprised by the efficacy of dupilumab on severe CRSwNP, based on my clinical experience. My clinical observation is similar to the results of this study. This study verifies that dupilumab is highly efficacious in treating refractory and severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting by improving all subjective and objective clinical outcomes such as SNOT-22, NPS, and smell test score,” he said. The study also confirms that a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation from every 2-4 weeks for CRSwNP patients with good response should be a consideration for clinical practice, he added. 

The cost-effectiveness of dupilumab is the main barrier to more consistent use, Dr. Cho said. “There is no evidence that dupilumab can change the course of the disease, and we don’t know how long patients need to be on this drug. Therefore, nasal polyps need to be refractory and severe enough to use dupilumab and other biologics,” he explained.

Consequently, proper indication criteria, such as the EPOS2020 indication criteria for biologics, should be established before initiating dupilumab, Dr. Cho noted.

“Generally, endoscopic sinus surgery would be preferred in sinus-surgery naive CRSwNP patients, unless surgery is contraindicated or refused by patients because of cost-effectiveness rather than the superior efficacy,” he said. “If surgery fails, then dupilumab can be considered. In addition, proper evaluation of nasal polyp severity would be important.”

“One should establish an objective NPS by endoscopic exam before initiation of dupilumab. This baseline score would be an important marker to assess the efficacy of dupilumab in the course of treatment.”

Monitoring of the NPS together with the patient’s symptom improvement would be essential to implementing a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation to reduce the cost, he emphasized. 

“The most crucial additional research is establishing suitable biomarkers for the response of dupilumab and other biologics,” said Dr. Cho. “Overall, the performance of dupilumab seems to be good. But there are patients unresponsive to dupilumab, even more to other recently FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP.”

Blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide can be a good biomarker for type 2 asthma, Dr. Cho added. “Still, there is no evidence that these biomarkers are decent for CRSwNP, even though CRSwNP is mostly considered as type 2 disease. Therefore, it would be essential to find promising biomarkers for severe CRSwNP.”

Dr. Van der Lans disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Sanofi and Novartis. The patient registry from which the study population was drawn is cofunded by Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Cho has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to conventional clinical wisdom, greater body fat is associated with lower bone mineral density (BMD), particularly in men, an analysis of data from a large, nationally representative sample has found.  

Much previous research has suggested that obesity protects against fractures and loss of BMD for a variety of reasons, including the beneficial effects of weight-bearing on the skeleton and hormonal factors linked to body fat. But the new findings should prompt a reconsideration of the relationship between obesity and fracture risk, according to the investigators, whose study appears in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While higher BMI [body mass index] is generally associated with higher bone density, our study demonstrates that lean and fat mass affect bone density differently and that obesity is not a guarantee against osteoporosis,” Rajesh K. Jain, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

Dr. Jain and a colleague, Tamara Vokes, MD, used multivariant modeling to examine the relationship between BMD and body composition of 10,814 men and women aged 20-59 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. All underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.

Participants were stratified into sex-specific quartiles based on lean mass index (LMI; lean mass divided by height squared) and fat mass index (FMI; fat mass divided by height squared). Lean mass had a strong positive association with bone density, whereas fat mass had a moderate negative effect, the researchers found.

An additional kg/m² of FMI was associated with a 0.10 lower T score, the number of standard deviations from the expected bone density of a young adult (P < .001). The negative effect was greater in men, who had a 0.13 lower T score per additional 1 kg/m² of FMI, compared with 0.08 lower in women (P < .001). The effect was most pronounced in people in the highest FMI quartile.

Body composition is not a routine clinical measurement, Dr. Jain and Dr. Vokes noted. Prior studies of the effect of body composition on bone density have been limited by small patient numbers, referral bias, lack of racial or ethnic diversity, and the use of estimates rather than true measures of fat and lean tissue. NHANES is designed to mirror the U.S. population.

The researchers say when it comes to patients with obesity, the findings “should not dissuade clinicians from assessing bone density, particularly if other risk factors are present.”
 

Useful clinical proxies for body composition

Clinicians have no routine way to measure body composition in an office setting. As a result, Dr. Jain advised clinicians to look at factors that correlate with high body fat, such as the presence of diabetes, or with low lean mass, such as poor performance on physical activity measures like grip strength, when deciding whether to consider osteoporosis screening. Patients with obesity should undergo recommended bone density screening, especially if they have other risk factors such as older age, previous fracture, steroid use, or a family history of fracture.

Although some extra weight may have a beneficial loading effect, too much extra weight can lead to metabolic problems and restrict movement, according to Rodrigo J. Valderrábano, MD, medical director of clinical research for the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a general sense that the extra weight is only good for your bones if you can carry it around,” said Dr. Valderrábano, who was not involved in the study.

More research is needed to understand why fat affects men and women differently, Dr. Jain noted. The researchers found that testosterone and estradiol values did not fully explain the variation.

Adipokines released by fat cells may be important in driving bone loss but were not measured in the study, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, president of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview. Distribution of fractures in obesity suggests that a high FMI may preferentially affect cortical bone instead of trabecular bone, but further studies using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT are required to confirm the difference.

Dr. Ebeling, who was not involved in the new study, agreed that the positive relationship between BMI and BMD has led to false reassurance that people with obesity may be protected from fragility fractures. “The take-home message for clinicians is that we should not neglect bone health in our patients with obesity, both male and female.”

Dr. Jain has reported receiving grant support from the Amgen Foundation and being a consultant for Radius Health. Dr. Vokes has reported being an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Radius Health, investigator and consultant for Takeda Pharmaceutical, and investigator for Ascendis Pharma. Dr. Valderrábano and Dr. Ebeling reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vidyard Video

Ureter identification is essential when performing pelvic surgery in order to avoid iatrogenic ureteral injuries, which can result in significant patient morbidity, especially when unrecognized. There are many modalities available to assist the surgeon with ureter identification, however, and this video highlights those options. The video objectives are: 

• present the clinical significance of ureter identification in gynecologic surgical procedures
• provide anatomic review of the ureter
• outline common sites for ureteral injury during gynecologic surgery
• present ureteral physiology
• discuss ureter identification techniques
• review ureteral identification during gynecologic surgical procedures.  

Vidyard Video

Ureter identification is essential when performing pelvic surgery in order to avoid iatrogenic ureteral injuries, which can result in significant patient morbidity, especially when unrecognized. There are many modalities available to assist the surgeon with ureter identification, however, and this video highlights those options. The video objectives are: 

• present the clinical significance of ureter identification in gynecologic surgical procedures
• provide anatomic review of the ureter
• outline common sites for ureteral injury during gynecologic surgery
• present ureteral physiology
• discuss ureter identification techniques
• review ureteral identification during gynecologic surgical procedures.  

Vidyard Video

Ureter identification is essential when performing pelvic surgery in order to avoid iatrogenic ureteral injuries, which can result in significant patient morbidity, especially when unrecognized. There are many modalities available to assist the surgeon with ureter identification, however, and this video highlights those options. The video objectives are: 

• present the clinical significance of ureter identification in gynecologic surgical procedures
• provide anatomic review of the ureter
• outline common sites for ureteral injury during gynecologic surgery
• present ureteral physiology
• discuss ureter identification techniques
• review ureteral identification during gynecologic surgical procedures.  

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sepsis is an alarmingly common cause behind ICU admissions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a retrospective, population-based cohort study indicates.

Furthermore, it contributes to a disproportionately high percentage of the short-term mortality risk among patients with MS admitted to the ICU, findings also show. Short-term mortality risk was defined in the study as a combination of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice.

“We found that the risk of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with MS is four times higher among those with sepsis ... so sepsis appears to be comparatively more lethal among patients with MS than in the general population,” Lavi Oud, MD, professor of medicine, Texas Tech University HSC at the Permian Basin, Odessa, said in an email.

“[Although] the specific mechanisms underlying the markedly higher risk of sepsis among patients with MS compared to the general population remain to be fully elucidated ... it’s thought that the risk may stem from the dysfunction of the immune system in these patients related to MS itself and to the potentially adverse effect of the immunomodulating therapy we use in these patients,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of Critical Care.
 

Sepsis rates

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File was used to identify adults with a diagnosis of MS admitted to the hospital between 2010 and 2017. Among the 19,837 patients with MS admitted to the ICU during the study interval, almost one-third (31.5%) had sepsis, investigators report. “The rate of sepsis among ICU admissions increased with age, ranging from 20.8% among those aged 18-44 to 39.4% among those aged 65 years or older,” investigators note.

The most common site of infection among MS patients admitted to the ICU were urinary in nature (65.2%), followed by respiratory (36.1%). A smaller proportion of infections (7.6%) involved the skin and soft tissues, researchers note. A full one-quarter of patients developed septic shock in response to their infection while the length of stay among patients with sepsis (mean of 10.9 days) was substantially longer than it was for those without sepsis (mean of 5.6 days), they observe.

At a mean total hospital cost of $121,797 for each ICU patient with sepsis, the cost of caring for each patient was nearly twofold higher than the mean total cost of taking care of ICU patients without sepsis (mean total cost, $65,179). On adjusted analysis, sepsis was associated with a 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 38.9-46.5; P < .0001) longer length of hospital stay and a 26.2% (95% CI, 23.1-29.1; P < .0001) higher total hospital cost compared with patients without sepsis, the authors point out.

Indeed, ICU admissions with sepsis accounted for 47.3% of all hospital days and for 46.1% of the aggregate hospital charges among all MS patients admitted to the ICU.

“The adjusted probability of short-term mortality was 13.4% (95% CI, 13.0-13.7) among ICU admissions with sepsis and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.2-3.4) among ICU admissions without sepsis,” the authors report.

This translated into a 44% higher risk of short-term mortality at an adjusted odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P < .0001) for those with sepsis, compared with those without, they add. Among all ICU admissions, sepsis was reported in over two-thirds of documented short-term mortality events. The risk of short-term mortality was also almost threefold higher among patients with sepsis who were age 65 years and older compared with patients aged 18-44. 

As Dr. Oud noted, there is no specific test for sepsis, and it can initially present in an atypical manner, especially in older, frailer, chronically ill patients as well as in patients with immune dysfunction. “Thus, considering sepsis as a possible cause of new deterioration in a patient’s condition is essential, along with the timely start of sepsis-related care,” Dr. Oud observed.

A limitation of the study was that the dataset did not include information on the type of MS a patient had, the duration of their illness, the treatment received, the level of disease activity, or the level of disability.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hello. This is Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, talking today about circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), an emerging technology for use in perioperative patients. Recently, there have been a number of presentations about the use of ctDNA measurements in patients receiving pre- or postoperative therapies. These are critical therapies because they are given with the intention of improving the chance for cure.

All three of the presentations I’m going to mention have one thing in common: They used the so-called tumor-informed panel. The investigators took the patients’ tumor tissue, looked for cancer-related genes in that tumor tissue, and then looked for those same genes in the patient’s blood. That technology is going to become very important, as shown in these presentations.

I made one of these presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Immuno-Oncology virtual meeting in Geneva. In our study, we were able to find genes in the majority of patients who had tumor tissue available. These patients were preoperative surgical candidates. In 72% of these, we were able to find and track ctDNA. When we tracked the DNA in the blood, we saw that the falling levels of DNA were associated with shrinkages of the cancer radiographically – the degree of shrinkage seen in this case in the neoadjuvant examination at the time of surgery and examining the resection specimen after neoadjuvant therapy. Ultimately, the major pathologic responses were associated with clearing or falling DNA as well. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that when you put this DNA information together with the major pathologic response information, all of the patients who had clearance of ctDNA and had a major pathologic response were disease free. I believe that eventually we will use this ctDNA data in conjunction with other measures of benefit to reach a more precise assessment of therapy benefit, and eventually it may be helpful for prognosis as well.

Two other studies also used this technology. One was earlier this year, presented by Patrick Forde at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. They associated changes in ctDNA using another tumor-informed assay. In that study, using the Archer assay, they were able to show that the ctDNA clearance was associated with a complete pathologic response. So again, combining this information provides a more precise measurement of the benefit of therapy.

Another presentation at ESMO Immuno-Oncology, by Caicun Zhou, looked at the Natera assay, another tumor-informed assay, in a trial of adjuvant atezolizumab. This group showed that patients who had clearance of their ctDNA after surgery had the greatest benefit from subsequent atezolizumab therapy. And even those patients who did not have clearance experienced some benefit of the atezolizumab therapy. In addition, they assessed the degree of benefit associated with whether or not PD-L1 was present. Those patients who had PD-L1 expression experienced the greatest benefit from the atezolizumab. For patients who didn’t have PD-L1 expression, where you wouldn’t expect atezolizumab to have this greater benefit, they didn’t see it.

I believe that ctDNA-informed testing will become more and more useful, both in clinical trials and ultimately in the care of patients with early-stage lung cancers. These tumor-informed assays are going to be standards of care and provide physicians and patients a better estimate of the effectiveness of therapy going forward.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported serving as a consultant and/or adviser for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received payments for various services from Genentech.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to protect people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from the more serious consequences of breakthrough COVID-19 infections, but results may vary by which vaccine was received, results of a small study suggest.

In a study of patients with IBD who had completed a primary vaccine series but went on to develop COVID-19, there were trends toward worse outcomes for patients who received a non-mRNA vaccine, older patients, and those who were on combination therapy rather than monotherapy, reported Emily Spiera, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

“Overall, we saw that vaccinated patients who subsequently developed COVID-19 had low rates of hospitalization, severe COVID, and death,” she said in an oral abstract at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

The study was conducted before the highly infectious Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 became dominant, however, and the sample size of 88 patients, combined with a low number of study events, was too small for statistical significance to emerge for most measures, Ms. Spiera acknowledged.

Nonetheless, the findings support the protective benefit of vaccines in this population, said Freddy Caldera, DO, associate professor of gastroenterology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was not involved in the study.

“In my mind, when we think about COVID vaccines, the whole goal is to prevent severe disease,” he said.

Dr. Caldera and colleagues conducted an earlier study of humoral immunogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 122 patients with IBD and 60 healthy controls, and found that all controls and 97% of patients with IBD developed antibodies, although antibody concentrations were lower in patients with IBD, compared with controls (P < .001). Those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 had significantly higher antibody concentrations than those who received the Pfizer-BNT vaccine series (P < .001).

They also found that patients on immune-modifying therapy had lower antibody concentrations, compared with those who were not on such therapy, or those who received aminosalicylates or vedolizumab (Entyvio; P = .003).

The protective effect of vaccines in this population became even more apparent after patients received an additional vaccine dose.

“We actually have a study in preprint of what happens after a third dose, where everyone made antibodies,” he said. “What we tell patients is that vaccines work.”
 

SECURE-IBD data

The investigators at Mount Sinai, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Tel Aviv University analyzed data from the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, an international web-based registry that includes reports from 74 countries, with data reported by 48 U.S. states.

The study sample consisted of patients enrolled from Dec. 12, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, who had completed a primary vaccination series with either mRNA vaccines (Pfizer or Moderna) adenoviral vector-based vaccines (AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CanSino, or Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), or an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac).

Of 2,477 patients with COVID-19 infections reported to SECURE-IBD, 160 reported being vaccinated. Of this group, 53 were excluded because they were only partially vaccinated, and 19 were excluded because of missing data on either vaccine type, number of doses, or COVID-19 outcomes, leaving 88 patients with completed primary vaccination series at the time of COVID-19 infection.

The median patient age was 40.1 years. Nearly two-thirds of the patients had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, and slightly more than one-third has a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. The patients came from 18 countries, with 45.3% of the sample in the United States.

A total of 58% of patients were on biologic monotherapy, with either a tumor necrosis factor antagonist, integrin antagonist, or anti–interleukin-12/13. In addition, 3.4% were on immunomodulator monotherapy, 21.6% were on combination therapy, and 5.7% were receiving corticosteroids.
 

Lower severity

COVID-19 severity was numerically but not significantly lower among the 88 vaccinated patients, with a rate of 5.7%, compared with 9.3% among 2,317 patients with COVID-19 infections in the database who were not vaccinated.

COVID-19 severity defined as a composite of ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and/or death was actually slightly higher among the vaccinated patients, with a rate of 3.4% versus 1.9% for nonvaccinated patients, but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was 1 death among vaccinated patients (1.1%) versus 29 among the unvaccinated (1.2%).

There were trends toward fewer hospitalizations and less-frequent severe COVID-19 infection among patients who received a mRNA vaccine, compared with other vaccine types, but again these differences did not reach statistical significance.

As noted before, there was a higher frequency of severe COVID-19 among patients on combination therapy than on monotherapy, but this difference too was not statistically significant.

As seen with COVID-19 in the general population older patients tended to have worse outcomes, with a mean age of 53 for patients requiring hospitalization, compared with 39 years for patients who stayed out of the hospital (P = .04), and a mean age of 59 among patients with severe COVID-19 infections, compared with 39 for patients with moderate or mild infections (P = .03).

Ms. Spiera described the case of the single vaccinated patient who died. The 63-year-old woman had moderately active Crohn’s disease treated with corticosteroids, adalimumab (Humira) and azathioprine at the time of COVID-19 infection. She had received the AstraZeneca adenoviral-based vaccine more than 30 days prior to infection. She was hospitalized and intubated, and died from gastrointestinal bleeding.

Ms. Spiera noted that, although the sample size was small, and only patients known to have COVID-19 were included, it is one of the largest cohorts to date of vaccinated patients with IBD who developed COVID-19. She said that the study supports prior studies showing that combination therapy and tumor necrosis factor antagonists may result in reduced immunity, and that mRNA vaccines may offer better protection against severe illness in this population.

The study was supported by a Digestive Disease Research Foundation Fellowship. Ms. Spiera and Dr. Caldera reported no relevant disclosures.

Adding the investigational twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) to insulin glargine significantly improves blood glucose control after 40 weeks, compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes, new research shows.  

The novel once-weekly injectable agent is nicknamed a twincretin because it combines two different gut-hormone activities. It works both as a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

Findings from the randomized phase 3 SURPASS-5 clinical trial were published online Feb. 8 in JAMA.

This is the latest in a series of SURPASS trials of tirzepatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes for which results have been presented at various conferences, announced by the company, and/or published since late 2020.

SURPASS-5 specifically investigated the effect on glycemic control of adding three different doses of once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide compared with placebo in 475 adults who hadn’t achieved target A1c levels using insulin glargine with or without metformin. Statistically significant reductions in A1c were found at 40 weeks for all three doses.

Moreover, authors Dominik Dahl, MD, group practice for internal medicine and diabetology, Hamburg, Germany, and colleagues note that the improvements in the tirzepatide groups “were associated with significantly lower insulin glargine use and significant bodyweight reduction compared with placebo.”

“Despite the differences in glycemic control between the tirzepatide and placebo groups, the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was below one event per patient-year in all treatment groups,” they add.

However, concerns about the study protocol and generalizability were raised in an accompanying editorial by Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, of the School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Importantly, the study did not compare tirzepatide with other treatments that could have been used to target the postprandial glycemic pattern of the study population,” he writes.

And ultimately, he says: “Even though the results of this investigation are important for demonstrating the potential clinical benefit of [tirzepatide], and may help to advance the goal of achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, the study may leave clinicians uncertain about when and how to best use tirzepatide to improve clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Significant A1c, weight reductions when added to insulin glargine

The randomized, phase 3 SURPASS-5 trial was conducted at 45 centers in eight countries between August 2019 and January 2021. The 475 adult participants had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled (baseline A1c, 7.0%-10.5%) with once-daily insulin glargine, with or without metformin. They were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide in doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or volume-matched placebo injections over 40 weeks.

The mean changes from baseline in A1c at week 40, the primary study endpoint, were –2.11, –2.40, and –2.34 percentage points for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide, respectively (P < .001), versus a nonsignificant change of –0.86 percentage points with placebo. The differences from placebo at week 40 were also significant for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses (both P < .001).  

Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg tirzepatide met the A1c target of less than 7% at week 40, compared with placebo (85%-90% vs. 34%; P < .001). Significantly higher proportions of patients in the 10-mg and 15-mg dose groups also achieved A1c less than 5.7% (42% and 50%, respectively, vs. 3%).

Mean fasting glucose was also reduced significantly with all doses of tirzepatide by 58.2 mg/dL, 64.0 mg/dL, and 62.6 mg/dL, respectively, versus 39.2 mg/dL with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

At week 40, mean body weight reductions from baseline were 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs), 7.5 kg, and 8.8 kg versus just 1.6 kg with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

All three tirzepatide doses were also associated with significant improvements from baseline in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides.  
 

Gastrointestinal adverse events, hypoglycemia seen in minority

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups versus placebo were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea (12%-21% vs. 10%), nausea (13%-18% vs. 2.5%), vomiting (7%-13% vs. 2.5%), and decreased appetite (7%-14% vs. 1.7%). Most of these adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and decreased over time in the tirzepatide groups.

There were no deaths in the study. Serious adverse events were reported by 8%-11% in the tirzepatide groups, compared with 8% in the placebo group. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6.0%, 8.4%, and 10.8% of the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, versus 2.5% in the placebo group.

Rates of hypoglycemia (less than or equal to 70 mg/dL) ranged from 14.2% to 19.3% with tirzepatide versus 12.5% with placebo. There were three episodes of severe hypoglycemia (less than 54 mg/dL), two with 10 mg tirzepatide and one with 15 mg tirzepatide.
 

Editorial raises questions

In his editorial, Dr. Chipkin writes that the study “demonstrated that use of tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in A1c and weight in a fairly homogeneous cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine with or without metformin.”

“The protocol answered questions about efficacy but left open questions about generalizability and effectiveness in different populations, especially patients with certain complications or comorbid chronic diseases.” He also notes that younger adults and Black patients were not well-represented.

And the study didn’t allow for dividing up the glargine dose or for adding short-acting insulin before meals or any other pre-meal medications and “thus may represent a departure from usual care” in the setting of rising glucose levels.

The authors themselves acknowledge that “the postprandial glucose excursions observed in the placebo group suggest an additional prandial intervention was likely needed in some patients, despite the strict inclusion criteria and the treat-to-target-approach used in the study.”

Dr. Chipkin concludes that “although patients are likely to embrace a medication with weight loss outcomes, the protocol also leaves unanswered questions about reducing insulin and evaluating the comparative risk of adverse effects.”

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dahl has reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Afimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Chipkin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding the investigational twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) to insulin glargine significantly improves blood glucose control after 40 weeks, compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes, new research shows.  

The novel once-weekly injectable agent is nicknamed a twincretin because it combines two different gut-hormone activities. It works both as a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

Findings from the randomized phase 3 SURPASS-5 clinical trial were published online Feb. 8 in JAMA.

This is the latest in a series of SURPASS trials of tirzepatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes for which results have been presented at various conferences, announced by the company, and/or published since late 2020.

SURPASS-5 specifically investigated the effect on glycemic control of adding three different doses of once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide compared with placebo in 475 adults who hadn’t achieved target A1c levels using insulin glargine with or without metformin. Statistically significant reductions in A1c were found at 40 weeks for all three doses.

Moreover, authors Dominik Dahl, MD, group practice for internal medicine and diabetology, Hamburg, Germany, and colleagues note that the improvements in the tirzepatide groups “were associated with significantly lower insulin glargine use and significant bodyweight reduction compared with placebo.”

“Despite the differences in glycemic control between the tirzepatide and placebo groups, the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was below one event per patient-year in all treatment groups,” they add.

However, concerns about the study protocol and generalizability were raised in an accompanying editorial by Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, of the School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Importantly, the study did not compare tirzepatide with other treatments that could have been used to target the postprandial glycemic pattern of the study population,” he writes.

And ultimately, he says: “Even though the results of this investigation are important for demonstrating the potential clinical benefit of [tirzepatide], and may help to advance the goal of achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, the study may leave clinicians uncertain about when and how to best use tirzepatide to improve clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Significant A1c, weight reductions when added to insulin glargine

The randomized, phase 3 SURPASS-5 trial was conducted at 45 centers in eight countries between August 2019 and January 2021. The 475 adult participants had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled (baseline A1c, 7.0%-10.5%) with once-daily insulin glargine, with or without metformin. They were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide in doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or volume-matched placebo injections over 40 weeks.

The mean changes from baseline in A1c at week 40, the primary study endpoint, were –2.11, –2.40, and –2.34 percentage points for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide, respectively (P < .001), versus a nonsignificant change of –0.86 percentage points with placebo. The differences from placebo at week 40 were also significant for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses (both P < .001).  

Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg tirzepatide met the A1c target of less than 7% at week 40, compared with placebo (85%-90% vs. 34%; P < .001). Significantly higher proportions of patients in the 10-mg and 15-mg dose groups also achieved A1c less than 5.7% (42% and 50%, respectively, vs. 3%).

Mean fasting glucose was also reduced significantly with all doses of tirzepatide by 58.2 mg/dL, 64.0 mg/dL, and 62.6 mg/dL, respectively, versus 39.2 mg/dL with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

At week 40, mean body weight reductions from baseline were 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs), 7.5 kg, and 8.8 kg versus just 1.6 kg with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

All three tirzepatide doses were also associated with significant improvements from baseline in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides.  
 

Gastrointestinal adverse events, hypoglycemia seen in minority

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups versus placebo were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea (12%-21% vs. 10%), nausea (13%-18% vs. 2.5%), vomiting (7%-13% vs. 2.5%), and decreased appetite (7%-14% vs. 1.7%). Most of these adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and decreased over time in the tirzepatide groups.

There were no deaths in the study. Serious adverse events were reported by 8%-11% in the tirzepatide groups, compared with 8% in the placebo group. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6.0%, 8.4%, and 10.8% of the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, versus 2.5% in the placebo group.

Rates of hypoglycemia (less than or equal to 70 mg/dL) ranged from 14.2% to 19.3% with tirzepatide versus 12.5% with placebo. There were three episodes of severe hypoglycemia (less than 54 mg/dL), two with 10 mg tirzepatide and one with 15 mg tirzepatide.
 

Editorial raises questions

In his editorial, Dr. Chipkin writes that the study “demonstrated that use of tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in A1c and weight in a fairly homogeneous cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine with or without metformin.”

“The protocol answered questions about efficacy but left open questions about generalizability and effectiveness in different populations, especially patients with certain complications or comorbid chronic diseases.” He also notes that younger adults and Black patients were not well-represented.

And the study didn’t allow for dividing up the glargine dose or for adding short-acting insulin before meals or any other pre-meal medications and “thus may represent a departure from usual care” in the setting of rising glucose levels.

The authors themselves acknowledge that “the postprandial glucose excursions observed in the placebo group suggest an additional prandial intervention was likely needed in some patients, despite the strict inclusion criteria and the treat-to-target-approach used in the study.”

Dr. Chipkin concludes that “although patients are likely to embrace a medication with weight loss outcomes, the protocol also leaves unanswered questions about reducing insulin and evaluating the comparative risk of adverse effects.”

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dahl has reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Afimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Chipkin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding the investigational twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) to insulin glargine significantly improves blood glucose control after 40 weeks, compared with placebo among patients with type 2 diabetes, new research shows.  

The novel once-weekly injectable agent is nicknamed a twincretin because it combines two different gut-hormone activities. It works both as a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

Findings from the randomized phase 3 SURPASS-5 clinical trial were published online Feb. 8 in JAMA.

This is the latest in a series of SURPASS trials of tirzepatide in individuals with type 2 diabetes for which results have been presented at various conferences, announced by the company, and/or published since late 2020.

SURPASS-5 specifically investigated the effect on glycemic control of adding three different doses of once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide compared with placebo in 475 adults who hadn’t achieved target A1c levels using insulin glargine with or without metformin. Statistically significant reductions in A1c were found at 40 weeks for all three doses.

Moreover, authors Dominik Dahl, MD, group practice for internal medicine and diabetology, Hamburg, Germany, and colleagues note that the improvements in the tirzepatide groups “were associated with significantly lower insulin glargine use and significant bodyweight reduction compared with placebo.”

“Despite the differences in glycemic control between the tirzepatide and placebo groups, the rate of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia was below one event per patient-year in all treatment groups,” they add.

However, concerns about the study protocol and generalizability were raised in an accompanying editorial by Stuart R. Chipkin, MD, of the School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Importantly, the study did not compare tirzepatide with other treatments that could have been used to target the postprandial glycemic pattern of the study population,” he writes.

And ultimately, he says: “Even though the results of this investigation are important for demonstrating the potential clinical benefit of [tirzepatide], and may help to advance the goal of achieving U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, the study may leave clinicians uncertain about when and how to best use tirzepatide to improve clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Significant A1c, weight reductions when added to insulin glargine

The randomized, phase 3 SURPASS-5 trial was conducted at 45 centers in eight countries between August 2019 and January 2021. The 475 adult participants had type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled (baseline A1c, 7.0%-10.5%) with once-daily insulin glargine, with or without metformin. They were randomized to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide in doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, or volume-matched placebo injections over 40 weeks.

The mean changes from baseline in A1c at week 40, the primary study endpoint, were –2.11, –2.40, and –2.34 percentage points for the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide, respectively (P < .001), versus a nonsignificant change of –0.86 percentage points with placebo. The differences from placebo at week 40 were also significant for the 10-mg and 15-mg doses (both P < .001).  

Significantly higher proportions of patients receiving 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg tirzepatide met the A1c target of less than 7% at week 40, compared with placebo (85%-90% vs. 34%; P < .001). Significantly higher proportions of patients in the 10-mg and 15-mg dose groups also achieved A1c less than 5.7% (42% and 50%, respectively, vs. 3%).

Mean fasting glucose was also reduced significantly with all doses of tirzepatide by 58.2 mg/dL, 64.0 mg/dL, and 62.6 mg/dL, respectively, versus 39.2 mg/dL with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

At week 40, mean body weight reductions from baseline were 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs), 7.5 kg, and 8.8 kg versus just 1.6 kg with placebo (all P <0.001 vs. placebo).

All three tirzepatide doses were also associated with significant improvements from baseline in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides.  
 

Gastrointestinal adverse events, hypoglycemia seen in minority

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the tirzepatide groups versus placebo were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea (12%-21% vs. 10%), nausea (13%-18% vs. 2.5%), vomiting (7%-13% vs. 2.5%), and decreased appetite (7%-14% vs. 1.7%). Most of these adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and decreased over time in the tirzepatide groups.

There were no deaths in the study. Serious adverse events were reported by 8%-11% in the tirzepatide groups, compared with 8% in the placebo group. Drug discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6.0%, 8.4%, and 10.8% of the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, versus 2.5% in the placebo group.

Rates of hypoglycemia (less than or equal to 70 mg/dL) ranged from 14.2% to 19.3% with tirzepatide versus 12.5% with placebo. There were three episodes of severe hypoglycemia (less than 54 mg/dL), two with 10 mg tirzepatide and one with 15 mg tirzepatide.
 

Editorial raises questions

In his editorial, Dr. Chipkin writes that the study “demonstrated that use of tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in A1c and weight in a fairly homogeneous cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine with or without metformin.”

“The protocol answered questions about efficacy but left open questions about generalizability and effectiveness in different populations, especially patients with certain complications or comorbid chronic diseases.” He also notes that younger adults and Black patients were not well-represented.

And the study didn’t allow for dividing up the glargine dose or for adding short-acting insulin before meals or any other pre-meal medications and “thus may represent a departure from usual care” in the setting of rising glucose levels.

The authors themselves acknowledge that “the postprandial glucose excursions observed in the placebo group suggest an additional prandial intervention was likely needed in some patients, despite the strict inclusion criteria and the treat-to-target-approach used in the study.”

Dr. Chipkin concludes that “although patients are likely to embrace a medication with weight loss outcomes, the protocol also leaves unanswered questions about reducing insulin and evaluating the comparative risk of adverse effects.”

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dahl has reported receiving personal fees from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Afimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Chipkin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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