MILAN — Tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, was more effective than was placebo in the resolution of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and in the improvement of fibrosis, according to the results of the phase 2 SYNERGY-NASH trial.

Specifically, 44%-62% of participants with MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis treated with 5-15 mg of tirzepatide achieved MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis compared with 10% on placebo; 51%-55% of those on tirzepatide achieved at least one stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of MASH compared with 30% on placebo. Tirzepatide also led to weight loss.

The study (Abstract LBO-001) was presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024 by Rohit Loomba, MD, professor of medicine, NAFLD Research Center, University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“The results are clinically meaningful,” Dr. Loomba said in an interview. 

University of California, San Diego

Both of the endpoints — improvements in MASH resolution and fibrosis — are considered approvable endpoints for MASH therapeutic development, and therefore, increase the likelihood of success of using such a strategy in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Loomba said.
 

MASH Resolution, No Worsening of Fibrosis

The dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned a total of 190 participants to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis. 

Overall, approximately 42% of participants had F2 fibrosis and over 57% had F3 fibrosis. The proportion of F3 fibrosis was numerically higher in the placebo (64.6%) and 5-mg tirzepatide (63.8%) groups. 

The mean age of the study cohort was 54 years; 57% were female, 86% were White, and 36% were Hispanic; the mean body mass index was 36; 58% had type 2 diabetes; and A1c was 6.5. NAFLD activity score (NAS) was 5.3. Baseline noninvasive test results were consistent with the study population of MASH with F2/F3 fibrosis and NAS ≥ 4. 

The primary endpoint was resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was an improvement (decrease) of at least one fibrosis stage without worsening of MASH. Other secondary endpoints included a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with ≤ 1-point decrease in two or more NAS components.

A total of 157 participants (83%) underwent liver biopsies at week 52, providing results for the current analysis. 

Among tirzepatide-treated patients, 43.6% in the 5-mg group, 55.5% in the 10-mg group, and 62.4% in the 15-mg group met the criteria for resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis compared with  10% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all three comparisons). 

Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of MASH in 54.9% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 51.3% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, and 51.0% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all risk differences with placebo). 

Changes in NAS and subscores for the individual components of NAS, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning, were also seen in participants on tirzepatide. 

The researchers used a composite endpoint of a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with a ≥ 1-point decrease in at least two NAS components. Of the tirzepatide-treated groups, 71.7%,78.3%, and 76.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg groups, respectively, met this endpoint compared with 36.7% in placebo. 

Imaging of liver fat with MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) showed reductions from baseline of -45.7, -41.3, -57.0 in participants on 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide, respectively. Differences from placebo were all statistically significant. 

Percentage of body weight change from baseline was -10.7%, -13.3%, and -15.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups, respectively, compared with weight loss of -0.8% in the placebo group. 

“Tirzepatide led to significant weight loss in both patients with diabetes and those without diabetes,” reported Dr. Loomba. 

There were more adverse events in patients on tirzepatide (92.3%) compared with patients on placebo (83.3%). 

“The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with 96% of them mild to moderate in severity,” said Dr. Loomba. “Discontinuations occurred in 4.2% of participants, which was similar between patients on tirzepatide and those on placebo.”

He pointed out that the safety profile of tirzepatide in a MASH population “was generally similar to that observed in the phase 3 trials of type 2 diabetes and obesity.”

Incidence of serious adverse events was also similar at 6.3% for participants on tirzepatide vs 6.2% for those on placebo; 2.8% on tirzepatide and 4.2% on placebo progressed to cirrhosis. There was no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. 
 

‘Convincing Results’

Commenting on the study, co-moderator Sven Francque, MD, hepatologist and head of department at the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium, said that the study was in a relatively “severe” patient population, which was one of its strengths. 

“These are convincing results in terms of MASH resolution, showing a strong response and dose-dependence,” he said. 

Dr. Francque

MILAN — Tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, was more effective than was placebo in the resolution of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and in the improvement of fibrosis, according to the results of the phase 2 SYNERGY-NASH trial.

Specifically, 44%-62% of participants with MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis treated with 5-15 mg of tirzepatide achieved MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis compared with 10% on placebo; 51%-55% of those on tirzepatide achieved at least one stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of MASH compared with 30% on placebo. Tirzepatide also led to weight loss.

The study (Abstract LBO-001) was presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024 by Rohit Loomba, MD, professor of medicine, NAFLD Research Center, University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“The results are clinically meaningful,” Dr. Loomba said in an interview. 

University of California, San Diego

Both of the endpoints — improvements in MASH resolution and fibrosis — are considered approvable endpoints for MASH therapeutic development, and therefore, increase the likelihood of success of using such a strategy in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Loomba said.
 

MASH Resolution, No Worsening of Fibrosis

The dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned a total of 190 participants to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis. 

Overall, approximately 42% of participants had F2 fibrosis and over 57% had F3 fibrosis. The proportion of F3 fibrosis was numerically higher in the placebo (64.6%) and 5-mg tirzepatide (63.8%) groups. 

The mean age of the study cohort was 54 years; 57% were female, 86% were White, and 36% were Hispanic; the mean body mass index was 36; 58% had type 2 diabetes; and A1c was 6.5. NAFLD activity score (NAS) was 5.3. Baseline noninvasive test results were consistent with the study population of MASH with F2/F3 fibrosis and NAS ≥ 4. 

The primary endpoint was resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was an improvement (decrease) of at least one fibrosis stage without worsening of MASH. Other secondary endpoints included a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with ≤ 1-point decrease in two or more NAS components.

A total of 157 participants (83%) underwent liver biopsies at week 52, providing results for the current analysis. 

Among tirzepatide-treated patients, 43.6% in the 5-mg group, 55.5% in the 10-mg group, and 62.4% in the 15-mg group met the criteria for resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis compared with  10% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all three comparisons). 

Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of MASH in 54.9% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 51.3% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, and 51.0% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all risk differences with placebo). 

Changes in NAS and subscores for the individual components of NAS, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning, were also seen in participants on tirzepatide. 

The researchers used a composite endpoint of a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with a ≥ 1-point decrease in at least two NAS components. Of the tirzepatide-treated groups, 71.7%,78.3%, and 76.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg groups, respectively, met this endpoint compared with 36.7% in placebo. 

Imaging of liver fat with MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) showed reductions from baseline of -45.7, -41.3, -57.0 in participants on 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide, respectively. Differences from placebo were all statistically significant. 

Percentage of body weight change from baseline was -10.7%, -13.3%, and -15.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups, respectively, compared with weight loss of -0.8% in the placebo group. 

“Tirzepatide led to significant weight loss in both patients with diabetes and those without diabetes,” reported Dr. Loomba. 

There were more adverse events in patients on tirzepatide (92.3%) compared with patients on placebo (83.3%). 

“The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with 96% of them mild to moderate in severity,” said Dr. Loomba. “Discontinuations occurred in 4.2% of participants, which was similar between patients on tirzepatide and those on placebo.”

He pointed out that the safety profile of tirzepatide in a MASH population “was generally similar to that observed in the phase 3 trials of type 2 diabetes and obesity.”

Incidence of serious adverse events was also similar at 6.3% for participants on tirzepatide vs 6.2% for those on placebo; 2.8% on tirzepatide and 4.2% on placebo progressed to cirrhosis. There was no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. 
 

‘Convincing Results’

Commenting on the study, co-moderator Sven Francque, MD, hepatologist and head of department at the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium, said that the study was in a relatively “severe” patient population, which was one of its strengths. 

“These are convincing results in terms of MASH resolution, showing a strong response and dose-dependence,” he said. 

Dr. Francque

MILAN — Tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, was more effective than was placebo in the resolution of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and in the improvement of fibrosis, according to the results of the phase 2 SYNERGY-NASH trial.

Specifically, 44%-62% of participants with MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis treated with 5-15 mg of tirzepatide achieved MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis compared with 10% on placebo; 51%-55% of those on tirzepatide achieved at least one stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of MASH compared with 30% on placebo. Tirzepatide also led to weight loss.

The study (Abstract LBO-001) was presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024 by Rohit Loomba, MD, professor of medicine, NAFLD Research Center, University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“The results are clinically meaningful,” Dr. Loomba said in an interview. 

University of California, San Diego

Both of the endpoints — improvements in MASH resolution and fibrosis — are considered approvable endpoints for MASH therapeutic development, and therefore, increase the likelihood of success of using such a strategy in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Loomba said.
 

MASH Resolution, No Worsening of Fibrosis

The dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned a total of 190 participants to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis. 

Overall, approximately 42% of participants had F2 fibrosis and over 57% had F3 fibrosis. The proportion of F3 fibrosis was numerically higher in the placebo (64.6%) and 5-mg tirzepatide (63.8%) groups. 

The mean age of the study cohort was 54 years; 57% were female, 86% were White, and 36% were Hispanic; the mean body mass index was 36; 58% had type 2 diabetes; and A1c was 6.5. NAFLD activity score (NAS) was 5.3. Baseline noninvasive test results were consistent with the study population of MASH with F2/F3 fibrosis and NAS ≥ 4. 

The primary endpoint was resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was an improvement (decrease) of at least one fibrosis stage without worsening of MASH. Other secondary endpoints included a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with ≤ 1-point decrease in two or more NAS components.

A total of 157 participants (83%) underwent liver biopsies at week 52, providing results for the current analysis. 

Among tirzepatide-treated patients, 43.6% in the 5-mg group, 55.5% in the 10-mg group, and 62.4% in the 15-mg group met the criteria for resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis compared with  10% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all three comparisons). 

Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of MASH in 54.9% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 51.3% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, and 51.0% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all risk differences with placebo). 

Changes in NAS and subscores for the individual components of NAS, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning, were also seen in participants on tirzepatide. 

The researchers used a composite endpoint of a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with a ≥ 1-point decrease in at least two NAS components. Of the tirzepatide-treated groups, 71.7%,78.3%, and 76.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg groups, respectively, met this endpoint compared with 36.7% in placebo. 

Imaging of liver fat with MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) showed reductions from baseline of -45.7, -41.3, -57.0 in participants on 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide, respectively. Differences from placebo were all statistically significant. 

Percentage of body weight change from baseline was -10.7%, -13.3%, and -15.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups, respectively, compared with weight loss of -0.8% in the placebo group. 

“Tirzepatide led to significant weight loss in both patients with diabetes and those without diabetes,” reported Dr. Loomba. 

There were more adverse events in patients on tirzepatide (92.3%) compared with patients on placebo (83.3%). 

“The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with 96% of them mild to moderate in severity,” said Dr. Loomba. “Discontinuations occurred in 4.2% of participants, which was similar between patients on tirzepatide and those on placebo.”

He pointed out that the safety profile of tirzepatide in a MASH population “was generally similar to that observed in the phase 3 trials of type 2 diabetes and obesity.”

Incidence of serious adverse events was also similar at 6.3% for participants on tirzepatide vs 6.2% for those on placebo; 2.8% on tirzepatide and 4.2% on placebo progressed to cirrhosis. There was no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. 
 

‘Convincing Results’

Commenting on the study, co-moderator Sven Francque, MD, hepatologist and head of department at the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium, said that the study was in a relatively “severe” patient population, which was one of its strengths. 

“These are convincing results in terms of MASH resolution, showing a strong response and dose-dependence,” he said. 

Dr. Francque

The AGA Research Foundation plays an important role in medical research by providing grants to talented scientists at a critical time in their career. AGA’s flagship award is the Research Scholar Award (RSA), which provides career development support for young investigators in gastroenterology and hepatology research.

“The AGA Research Scholar Award will have a significant impact on my career,” said Dr. Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, 2024 AGA Research Scholar Award grant recipient, and a gastroenterologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “I aspire to lead a laboratory studying the impact of the microbiome on human gastroenterological diseases. Our lab will focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying how microbes activate gut signaling. The AGA Research Foundation grant will support my transition to independence and build key capacities that will be the foundation of my future lab.”

Boston Children&#039;s Hospital

Funded by the generosity of donors, the AGA Research Foundation’s research award program ensures that AGA is building a community of researchers whose work serves the greater community and benefits all our patients.

By joining other AGA members in supporting the AGA Research Foundation, you will ensure that young researchers have opportunities to continue their life-saving work. Your tax-deductible contribution supports the foundation’s research award program, including the RSA, which ensures that studies are funded, discoveries are made and patients are treated.

Learn more or make a contribution at www.foundation.gastro.org.

The AGA Research Foundation plays an important role in medical research by providing grants to talented scientists at a critical time in their career. AGA’s flagship award is the Research Scholar Award (RSA), which provides career development support for young investigators in gastroenterology and hepatology research.

“The AGA Research Scholar Award will have a significant impact on my career,” said Dr. Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, 2024 AGA Research Scholar Award grant recipient, and a gastroenterologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “I aspire to lead a laboratory studying the impact of the microbiome on human gastroenterological diseases. Our lab will focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying how microbes activate gut signaling. The AGA Research Foundation grant will support my transition to independence and build key capacities that will be the foundation of my future lab.”

Boston Children&#039;s Hospital

Funded by the generosity of donors, the AGA Research Foundation’s research award program ensures that AGA is building a community of researchers whose work serves the greater community and benefits all our patients.

By joining other AGA members in supporting the AGA Research Foundation, you will ensure that young researchers have opportunities to continue their life-saving work. Your tax-deductible contribution supports the foundation’s research award program, including the RSA, which ensures that studies are funded, discoveries are made and patients are treated.

Learn more or make a contribution at www.foundation.gastro.org.

The AGA Research Foundation plays an important role in medical research by providing grants to talented scientists at a critical time in their career. AGA’s flagship award is the Research Scholar Award (RSA), which provides career development support for young investigators in gastroenterology and hepatology research.

“The AGA Research Scholar Award will have a significant impact on my career,” said Dr. Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, 2024 AGA Research Scholar Award grant recipient, and a gastroenterologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “I aspire to lead a laboratory studying the impact of the microbiome on human gastroenterological diseases. Our lab will focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying how microbes activate gut signaling. The AGA Research Foundation grant will support my transition to independence and build key capacities that will be the foundation of my future lab.”

Boston Children&#039;s Hospital

Funded by the generosity of donors, the AGA Research Foundation’s research award program ensures that AGA is building a community of researchers whose work serves the greater community and benefits all our patients.

By joining other AGA members in supporting the AGA Research Foundation, you will ensure that young researchers have opportunities to continue their life-saving work. Your tax-deductible contribution supports the foundation’s research award program, including the RSA, which ensures that studies are funded, discoveries are made and patients are treated.

Learn more or make a contribution at www.foundation.gastro.org.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is a great day when a patient shows up at clinical appointment already motivated to make lifestyle behavior changes. Often, they have been inspired by health information they consumed elsewhere, such as from a book, movie, documentary, TV show, a friend, or something out in the community.

Currently, one of the more public representations of health and longevity promotion is Blue Zones. The organization, named for specific areas of the world — the so-called blue zones, where people experience less disease and live longer lives — has created considerable public awareness for healthy living. Today, there are more than 75 Blue Zones Project communities across the United States, where community leaders, businesses, organizations, and citizens collaborate to make healthier choices the easier choices. A recent Netflix special, Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones, further propelled blue zones into the public consciousness.

For clinicians trained in lifestyle medicine, Blue Zones’ consumer awareness is an opportunity. There is considerable crossover between the lifestyle habits advocated by Blue Zones, known as the Power9, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine. The Blue Zones emphasis on “plant-slant” diet, natural movement, purpose and contribution, downshifting, and family and community intersect with the lifestyle medicine pillars of whole-food, plant-predominant eating patterns, regular physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, and positive social connections. Both Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine share a goal of creating healthier and stronger individuals and communities.

For those reasons, it made perfect sense that Blue Zones and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) recently announced a partnership to synergize both organizations’ strengths and resources. Among other things, the collaboration will establish a new certification status of Blue Zones–Certified Physician or Blue Zones–Certified Healthcare Professional, available in 2025 exclusively to clinicians who already are or become certified in lifestyle medicine.

Because of Blue Zones’ considerable consumer awareness, physicians and other health professionals who earn the certification will stand out to potential patients as clinicians with the training and knowledge to help them make sustainable lifestyle behavior changes. A challenging part of any clinician’s job is educating and convincing patients on the proven health benefits of lifestyle behavior change within the time restraints of a routine clinical visit. Patients familiar with Blue Zones are more likely to arrive already interested in changing lifestyle behavior, and clinicians should have the skills to help them achieve their goals.

In addition, community infrastructure developed through Blue Zones that supports healthful lifestyle choices is significant for patients. Lack of resources in their home, work, and community environments is a common obstacle that patients cite when discussing lifestyle change with a clinician. Bicycle lanes for commuting, parks with exercise equipment, accessible healthy food options, and community events to facilitate positive social connections enhance lifestyle-medicine prescriptions. Workplaces, restaurants, places of worship, and grocery stores are examples of community stakeholders that collaborate in Blue Zones communities to promote healthy lifestyle decisions. Although lifestyle medicine clinicians can and do identify creative ways to support patients in communities without strong healthy choice infrastructure, the Blue Zones road map is a welcome companion.

The timing is right for this synthesis of Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine. As consumer interest in Blue Zones has risen, so has clinician interest in evidence-based lifestyle medicine. Since certification in lifestyle medicine began in 2017, almost 6700 physicians and other health professionals have become certified worldwide. More than 43,000 health care professionals have registered for ACLM’s complimentary lifestyle and food-as-medicine courses highlighted by the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. 

What if more patients came to us motivated to make lifestyle changes because of awareness infused in their work and supported in their surrounding community? Matching lifestyle medicine certification with Blue Zone communities equips clinicians to help these patients achieve what they really want: to live longer and better.

Dr. Collings is Director of Lifestyle Medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and Past President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is a great day when a patient shows up at clinical appointment already motivated to make lifestyle behavior changes. Often, they have been inspired by health information they consumed elsewhere, such as from a book, movie, documentary, TV show, a friend, or something out in the community.

Currently, one of the more public representations of health and longevity promotion is Blue Zones. The organization, named for specific areas of the world — the so-called blue zones, where people experience less disease and live longer lives — has created considerable public awareness for healthy living. Today, there are more than 75 Blue Zones Project communities across the United States, where community leaders, businesses, organizations, and citizens collaborate to make healthier choices the easier choices. A recent Netflix special, Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones, further propelled blue zones into the public consciousness.

For clinicians trained in lifestyle medicine, Blue Zones’ consumer awareness is an opportunity. There is considerable crossover between the lifestyle habits advocated by Blue Zones, known as the Power9, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine. The Blue Zones emphasis on “plant-slant” diet, natural movement, purpose and contribution, downshifting, and family and community intersect with the lifestyle medicine pillars of whole-food, plant-predominant eating patterns, regular physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, and positive social connections. Both Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine share a goal of creating healthier and stronger individuals and communities.

For those reasons, it made perfect sense that Blue Zones and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) recently announced a partnership to synergize both organizations’ strengths and resources. Among other things, the collaboration will establish a new certification status of Blue Zones–Certified Physician or Blue Zones–Certified Healthcare Professional, available in 2025 exclusively to clinicians who already are or become certified in lifestyle medicine.

Because of Blue Zones’ considerable consumer awareness, physicians and other health professionals who earn the certification will stand out to potential patients as clinicians with the training and knowledge to help them make sustainable lifestyle behavior changes. A challenging part of any clinician’s job is educating and convincing patients on the proven health benefits of lifestyle behavior change within the time restraints of a routine clinical visit. Patients familiar with Blue Zones are more likely to arrive already interested in changing lifestyle behavior, and clinicians should have the skills to help them achieve their goals.

In addition, community infrastructure developed through Blue Zones that supports healthful lifestyle choices is significant for patients. Lack of resources in their home, work, and community environments is a common obstacle that patients cite when discussing lifestyle change with a clinician. Bicycle lanes for commuting, parks with exercise equipment, accessible healthy food options, and community events to facilitate positive social connections enhance lifestyle-medicine prescriptions. Workplaces, restaurants, places of worship, and grocery stores are examples of community stakeholders that collaborate in Blue Zones communities to promote healthy lifestyle decisions. Although lifestyle medicine clinicians can and do identify creative ways to support patients in communities without strong healthy choice infrastructure, the Blue Zones road map is a welcome companion.

The timing is right for this synthesis of Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine. As consumer interest in Blue Zones has risen, so has clinician interest in evidence-based lifestyle medicine. Since certification in lifestyle medicine began in 2017, almost 6700 physicians and other health professionals have become certified worldwide. More than 43,000 health care professionals have registered for ACLM’s complimentary lifestyle and food-as-medicine courses highlighted by the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. 

What if more patients came to us motivated to make lifestyle changes because of awareness infused in their work and supported in their surrounding community? Matching lifestyle medicine certification with Blue Zone communities equips clinicians to help these patients achieve what they really want: to live longer and better.

Dr. Collings is Director of Lifestyle Medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and Past President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is a great day when a patient shows up at clinical appointment already motivated to make lifestyle behavior changes. Often, they have been inspired by health information they consumed elsewhere, such as from a book, movie, documentary, TV show, a friend, or something out in the community.

Currently, one of the more public representations of health and longevity promotion is Blue Zones. The organization, named for specific areas of the world — the so-called blue zones, where people experience less disease and live longer lives — has created considerable public awareness for healthy living. Today, there are more than 75 Blue Zones Project communities across the United States, where community leaders, businesses, organizations, and citizens collaborate to make healthier choices the easier choices. A recent Netflix special, Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones, further propelled blue zones into the public consciousness.

For clinicians trained in lifestyle medicine, Blue Zones’ consumer awareness is an opportunity. There is considerable crossover between the lifestyle habits advocated by Blue Zones, known as the Power9, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine. The Blue Zones emphasis on “plant-slant” diet, natural movement, purpose and contribution, downshifting, and family and community intersect with the lifestyle medicine pillars of whole-food, plant-predominant eating patterns, regular physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, and positive social connections. Both Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine share a goal of creating healthier and stronger individuals and communities.

For those reasons, it made perfect sense that Blue Zones and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) recently announced a partnership to synergize both organizations’ strengths and resources. Among other things, the collaboration will establish a new certification status of Blue Zones–Certified Physician or Blue Zones–Certified Healthcare Professional, available in 2025 exclusively to clinicians who already are or become certified in lifestyle medicine.

Because of Blue Zones’ considerable consumer awareness, physicians and other health professionals who earn the certification will stand out to potential patients as clinicians with the training and knowledge to help them make sustainable lifestyle behavior changes. A challenging part of any clinician’s job is educating and convincing patients on the proven health benefits of lifestyle behavior change within the time restraints of a routine clinical visit. Patients familiar with Blue Zones are more likely to arrive already interested in changing lifestyle behavior, and clinicians should have the skills to help them achieve their goals.

In addition, community infrastructure developed through Blue Zones that supports healthful lifestyle choices is significant for patients. Lack of resources in their home, work, and community environments is a common obstacle that patients cite when discussing lifestyle change with a clinician. Bicycle lanes for commuting, parks with exercise equipment, accessible healthy food options, and community events to facilitate positive social connections enhance lifestyle-medicine prescriptions. Workplaces, restaurants, places of worship, and grocery stores are examples of community stakeholders that collaborate in Blue Zones communities to promote healthy lifestyle decisions. Although lifestyle medicine clinicians can and do identify creative ways to support patients in communities without strong healthy choice infrastructure, the Blue Zones road map is a welcome companion.

The timing is right for this synthesis of Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine. As consumer interest in Blue Zones has risen, so has clinician interest in evidence-based lifestyle medicine. Since certification in lifestyle medicine began in 2017, almost 6700 physicians and other health professionals have become certified worldwide. More than 43,000 health care professionals have registered for ACLM’s complimentary lifestyle and food-as-medicine courses highlighted by the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. 

What if more patients came to us motivated to make lifestyle changes because of awareness infused in their work and supported in their surrounding community? Matching lifestyle medicine certification with Blue Zone communities equips clinicians to help these patients achieve what they really want: to live longer and better.

Dr. Collings is Director of Lifestyle Medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and Past President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”

That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.

At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.

But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.

With the national shortage of primary care physicians reaching 17,637 in 2023 and projected to worsen, more Americans are paying for the privilege of seeing a doctor — on top of insurance premiums that cover most services a doctor might provide or order. Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.

“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.

A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.

There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)

The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.

As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.

Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.

These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.

Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”

Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”

In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.

For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.

“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .

That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.

What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?

Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.

Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.

Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.

Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”

Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”

That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.

At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.

But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.

With the national shortage of primary care physicians reaching 17,637 in 2023 and projected to worsen, more Americans are paying for the privilege of seeing a doctor — on top of insurance premiums that cover most services a doctor might provide or order. Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.

“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.

A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.

There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)

The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.

As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.

Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.

These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.

Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”

Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”

In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.

For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.

“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .

That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.

What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?

Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.

Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.

Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.

Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”

Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”

That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.

At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.

But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.

With the national shortage of primary care physicians reaching 17,637 in 2023 and projected to worsen, more Americans are paying for the privilege of seeing a doctor — on top of insurance premiums that cover most services a doctor might provide or order. Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.

“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.

A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.

There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)

The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.

As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.

Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.

These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.

Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”

Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”

In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.

For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.

“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .

That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.

What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?

Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.

Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.

Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.

Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”

Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Eight commonly used antidepressants have been ranked by their weight gain potential. 

Results of a large observational study showed small differences in short- and long-term weight change in patients prescribed one of eight antidepressants, with bupropion associated with the lowest weight gain and escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine associated with the greatest. 

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with those taking sertraline, which was used as a comparator. 

Investigators noted that the more clinicians and patients know about how a particular antidepressant may affect patients’ weight, the better informed they can be about which antidepressants to prescribe. 

“Patients and their clinicians often have several options when starting an antidepressant for the first time. This study provides important real-world evidence regarding the amount of weight gain that should be expected after starting some of the most common antidepressants,” lead author Joshua Petimar, ScD, assistant professor of population medicine in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a press release. 

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. 


 

Real-World Data

Though weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of antidepressant use and may lead to medication nonadherence and worse outcomes, there is a lack of real-world data about weight change across specific medications. 

Investigators used electronic health records from eight health care systems across the United States spanning from 2010 to 2019. The analysis included information on 183,118 adults aged 20-80 years who were new users of one of eight common first-line antidepressants. Investigators measured their weight at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects of weight change.

At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to begin sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. 

The most common antidepressants prescribed were sertraline, citalopram, and bupropion. Approximately 36% of participants had a diagnosis of depression, and 39% were diagnosed with anxiety.

Among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), escitalopram and paroxetine were associated with the greatest 6-month weight gain, whereas bupropion was associated with the least weight gain across all analyses.

Using sertraline as a comparator, 6-month weight change was lower for bupropion (difference, 0.22 kg) and higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg), and venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg).

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with sertraline users.

Investigators noted little difference in adherence levels between medications during the study except at 6 months, when it was higher for those who took bupropion (41%) than for those taking other antidepressants (28%-36%).

The study included data only on prescriptions and investigators could not verify whether the medications were dispensed or taken as prescribed. Other limitations included missing weight information because most patients did not encounter the health system at exactly 6, 12, and 24 months; only 15%-30% had weight measurements in those months. 

Finally, the low adherence rates made it difficult to attribute relative weight change at the 12- and 24-month time points to the specific medications of interest.

“Clinicians and patients could consider these differences when making decisions about specific antidepressants, especially given the complex relationships of obesity and depression with health, quality of life, and stigma,” the authors wrote. 

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Disclosures are noted in the original article. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eight commonly used antidepressants have been ranked by their weight gain potential. 

Results of a large observational study showed small differences in short- and long-term weight change in patients prescribed one of eight antidepressants, with bupropion associated with the lowest weight gain and escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine associated with the greatest. 

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with those taking sertraline, which was used as a comparator. 

Investigators noted that the more clinicians and patients know about how a particular antidepressant may affect patients’ weight, the better informed they can be about which antidepressants to prescribe. 

“Patients and their clinicians often have several options when starting an antidepressant for the first time. This study provides important real-world evidence regarding the amount of weight gain that should be expected after starting some of the most common antidepressants,” lead author Joshua Petimar, ScD, assistant professor of population medicine in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a press release. 

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. 


 

Real-World Data

Though weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of antidepressant use and may lead to medication nonadherence and worse outcomes, there is a lack of real-world data about weight change across specific medications. 

Investigators used electronic health records from eight health care systems across the United States spanning from 2010 to 2019. The analysis included information on 183,118 adults aged 20-80 years who were new users of one of eight common first-line antidepressants. Investigators measured their weight at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects of weight change.

At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to begin sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. 

The most common antidepressants prescribed were sertraline, citalopram, and bupropion. Approximately 36% of participants had a diagnosis of depression, and 39% were diagnosed with anxiety.

Among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), escitalopram and paroxetine were associated with the greatest 6-month weight gain, whereas bupropion was associated with the least weight gain across all analyses.

Using sertraline as a comparator, 6-month weight change was lower for bupropion (difference, 0.22 kg) and higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg), and venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg).

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with sertraline users.

Investigators noted little difference in adherence levels between medications during the study except at 6 months, when it was higher for those who took bupropion (41%) than for those taking other antidepressants (28%-36%).

The study included data only on prescriptions and investigators could not verify whether the medications were dispensed or taken as prescribed. Other limitations included missing weight information because most patients did not encounter the health system at exactly 6, 12, and 24 months; only 15%-30% had weight measurements in those months. 

Finally, the low adherence rates made it difficult to attribute relative weight change at the 12- and 24-month time points to the specific medications of interest.

“Clinicians and patients could consider these differences when making decisions about specific antidepressants, especially given the complex relationships of obesity and depression with health, quality of life, and stigma,” the authors wrote. 

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Disclosures are noted in the original article. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eight commonly used antidepressants have been ranked by their weight gain potential. 

Results of a large observational study showed small differences in short- and long-term weight change in patients prescribed one of eight antidepressants, with bupropion associated with the lowest weight gain and escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine associated with the greatest. 

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with those taking sertraline, which was used as a comparator. 

Investigators noted that the more clinicians and patients know about how a particular antidepressant may affect patients’ weight, the better informed they can be about which antidepressants to prescribe. 

“Patients and their clinicians often have several options when starting an antidepressant for the first time. This study provides important real-world evidence regarding the amount of weight gain that should be expected after starting some of the most common antidepressants,” lead author Joshua Petimar, ScD, assistant professor of population medicine in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a press release. 

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. 


 

Real-World Data

Though weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of antidepressant use and may lead to medication nonadherence and worse outcomes, there is a lack of real-world data about weight change across specific medications. 

Investigators used electronic health records from eight health care systems across the United States spanning from 2010 to 2019. The analysis included information on 183,118 adults aged 20-80 years who were new users of one of eight common first-line antidepressants. Investigators measured their weight at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects of weight change.

At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to begin sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. 

The most common antidepressants prescribed were sertraline, citalopram, and bupropion. Approximately 36% of participants had a diagnosis of depression, and 39% were diagnosed with anxiety.

Among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), escitalopram and paroxetine were associated with the greatest 6-month weight gain, whereas bupropion was associated with the least weight gain across all analyses.

Using sertraline as a comparator, 6-month weight change was lower for bupropion (difference, 0.22 kg) and higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg), and venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg).

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with sertraline users.

Investigators noted little difference in adherence levels between medications during the study except at 6 months, when it was higher for those who took bupropion (41%) than for those taking other antidepressants (28%-36%).

The study included data only on prescriptions and investigators could not verify whether the medications were dispensed or taken as prescribed. Other limitations included missing weight information because most patients did not encounter the health system at exactly 6, 12, and 24 months; only 15%-30% had weight measurements in those months. 

Finally, the low adherence rates made it difficult to attribute relative weight change at the 12- and 24-month time points to the specific medications of interest.

“Clinicians and patients could consider these differences when making decisions about specific antidepressants, especially given the complex relationships of obesity and depression with health, quality of life, and stigma,” the authors wrote. 

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Disclosures are noted in the original article. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Patients with type 2 diabetes, overweight, or obesity taking the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide appear to have an increased risk for an uncommon condition that can cause vision loss. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 16,827 patients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston.
• Their analysis focused on 710 patients with type 2 diabetes (194 of whom had been prescribed semaglutide) and 979 patients with overweight or obesity (361 prescribed semaglutide).
• The researchers compared patients prescribed semaglutide with those prescribed a medication other than a GLP-1 agent. They matched patients by factors such as age and sex and whether they had hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, or coronary artery disease.
• They assessed the cumulative incidence of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) during 36 months of follow-up. 
•  

TAKEAWAY: 

• Semaglutide use was associated with a higher risk for NAION in patients with type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.28; 95% CI, 1.62-11.29).
• In patients with overweight or obesity, semaglutide again was linked to a higher risk for NAION (HR, 7.64; 95% CI, 2.21-26.36).
• Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 8.9% for those prescribed semaglutide vs 1.8% among those taking non–GLP-1 medications.
• For patients with overweight or obesity, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 6.7% for the semaglutide cohort vs 0.8% for those in the other group. 

IN PRACTICE:

Semaglutide has “provided very significant benefits in many ways, but future discussions between a patient and their physician should include NAION as a potential risk,” study leader Joseph Rizzo, MD, with Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release about the findings. “It is important to appreciate, however, that the increased risk relates to a disorder that is relatively uncommon.”

“Given the numbers of participants who have been recruited to clinical trials and the large number of people globally who use GLP-1 RAs, we should be confident that if corroborated, the absolute risk of developing NAION in direct relation to taking semaglutide must indeed be rare,” Susan P. Mollan, MBcHB, of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in England, wrote in a commentary published with the study. 
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on July 3 in JAMA Ophthalmology.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The patients were seen at a hospital that specializes in ophthalmology and has a specialized neuro-ophthalmology service, so the results may not fully apply to other settings. The results were driven by a relatively small number of NAION cases in the patients exposed to semaglutide. The study does not establish that semaglutide directly causes NAION, the researchers noted. “The best approaches to confirm, refute, or refine our findings would be to conduct a much larger, retrospective, multicenter population-based cohort study; a prospective, randomized clinical study; or a postmarket analysis of all GLP-1 RA drugs,” they wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. 
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Patients with type 2 diabetes, overweight, or obesity taking the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide appear to have an increased risk for an uncommon condition that can cause vision loss. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 16,827 patients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston.
• Their analysis focused on 710 patients with type 2 diabetes (194 of whom had been prescribed semaglutide) and 979 patients with overweight or obesity (361 prescribed semaglutide).
• The researchers compared patients prescribed semaglutide with those prescribed a medication other than a GLP-1 agent. They matched patients by factors such as age and sex and whether they had hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, or coronary artery disease.
• They assessed the cumulative incidence of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) during 36 months of follow-up. 
•  

TAKEAWAY: 

• Semaglutide use was associated with a higher risk for NAION in patients with type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.28; 95% CI, 1.62-11.29).
• In patients with overweight or obesity, semaglutide again was linked to a higher risk for NAION (HR, 7.64; 95% CI, 2.21-26.36).
• Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 8.9% for those prescribed semaglutide vs 1.8% among those taking non–GLP-1 medications.
• For patients with overweight or obesity, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 6.7% for the semaglutide cohort vs 0.8% for those in the other group. 

IN PRACTICE:

Semaglutide has “provided very significant benefits in many ways, but future discussions between a patient and their physician should include NAION as a potential risk,” study leader Joseph Rizzo, MD, with Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release about the findings. “It is important to appreciate, however, that the increased risk relates to a disorder that is relatively uncommon.”

“Given the numbers of participants who have been recruited to clinical trials and the large number of people globally who use GLP-1 RAs, we should be confident that if corroborated, the absolute risk of developing NAION in direct relation to taking semaglutide must indeed be rare,” Susan P. Mollan, MBcHB, of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in England, wrote in a commentary published with the study. 
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on July 3 in JAMA Ophthalmology.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The patients were seen at a hospital that specializes in ophthalmology and has a specialized neuro-ophthalmology service, so the results may not fully apply to other settings. The results were driven by a relatively small number of NAION cases in the patients exposed to semaglutide. The study does not establish that semaglutide directly causes NAION, the researchers noted. “The best approaches to confirm, refute, or refine our findings would be to conduct a much larger, retrospective, multicenter population-based cohort study; a prospective, randomized clinical study; or a postmarket analysis of all GLP-1 RA drugs,” they wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. 
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Patients with type 2 diabetes, overweight, or obesity taking the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide appear to have an increased risk for an uncommon condition that can cause vision loss. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 16,827 patients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston.
• Their analysis focused on 710 patients with type 2 diabetes (194 of whom had been prescribed semaglutide) and 979 patients with overweight or obesity (361 prescribed semaglutide).
• The researchers compared patients prescribed semaglutide with those prescribed a medication other than a GLP-1 agent. They matched patients by factors such as age and sex and whether they had hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, or coronary artery disease.
• They assessed the cumulative incidence of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) during 36 months of follow-up. 
•  

TAKEAWAY: 

• Semaglutide use was associated with a higher risk for NAION in patients with type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.28; 95% CI, 1.62-11.29).
• In patients with overweight or obesity, semaglutide again was linked to a higher risk for NAION (HR, 7.64; 95% CI, 2.21-26.36).
• Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 8.9% for those prescribed semaglutide vs 1.8% among those taking non–GLP-1 medications.
• For patients with overweight or obesity, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 6.7% for the semaglutide cohort vs 0.8% for those in the other group. 

IN PRACTICE:

Semaglutide has “provided very significant benefits in many ways, but future discussions between a patient and their physician should include NAION as a potential risk,” study leader Joseph Rizzo, MD, with Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release about the findings. “It is important to appreciate, however, that the increased risk relates to a disorder that is relatively uncommon.”

“Given the numbers of participants who have been recruited to clinical trials and the large number of people globally who use GLP-1 RAs, we should be confident that if corroborated, the absolute risk of developing NAION in direct relation to taking semaglutide must indeed be rare,” Susan P. Mollan, MBcHB, of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in England, wrote in a commentary published with the study. 
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on July 3 in JAMA Ophthalmology.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The patients were seen at a hospital that specializes in ophthalmology and has a specialized neuro-ophthalmology service, so the results may not fully apply to other settings. The results were driven by a relatively small number of NAION cases in the patients exposed to semaglutide. The study does not establish that semaglutide directly causes NAION, the researchers noted. “The best approaches to confirm, refute, or refine our findings would be to conduct a much larger, retrospective, multicenter population-based cohort study; a prospective, randomized clinical study; or a postmarket analysis of all GLP-1 RA drugs,” they wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. 
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.