Multiple sclerosis (MS) has three distinct subtypes based on immune markers in patient’s blood, each with slightly different disease trajectories and responses to therapy, a new study suggests.

With further validation, determining a patient’s blood “immune signature,” or endophenotype, before starting immunomodulatory therapy may help predict clinical disease trajectories and lead to more personalized treatment decisions, investigators said.

“The characterization of an endophenotype at timepoints of diagnosis will help to determine likely trajectory of the disease course but also will help to refine the chosen immune therapy,” said Heinz Wiendl, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Münster, Germany. “This is a rationale way of precision medicine for the future.”

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Degenerative and Inflammatory Subtypes

MS is a highly heterogeneous disorder with different clinical manifestations and disease trajectories, making it a challenge to manage. Whether this heterogeneity is reflected by discrete immune signatures in the blood has been unclear.

To investigate, Dr. Wiendl and a multicenter team comprehensively analyzed the immunological properties of blood samples collected from 309 patients with early MS and an independent validation cohort of 232 patients with early MS.

In both cohorts, they found that cellular immune signatures split into three distinct immunological endophenotypes, dubbed E1, E2, and E3.

E1 is characterized by alterations in the CD4 T-cell compartment, with increases in inflammatory cytokines, namely interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-22, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as earlier structural brain damage, more severe disease, and higher disability.

Alterations in natural killer cells are a hallmark of the E2 subtype, while alterations in the CD8 T cells dominate the E3 subtype.

The different subtypes were associated with distinct clinical disease trajectories. E3 patients displayed a pattern reflecting higher inflammatory disease activity, as illustrated by a higher relapse rate (≥ 2) within the first year from baseline and more frequent use of highly active disease-modifying therapies as first immunomodulatory treatment.

E3 patients also had higher numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline, a higher conversion rate from clinically isolated syndrome to relapsing-remitting MS, and rapid disability accrual within 2 years after baseline.

This endophenotype was also associated with an increase in total cell numbers within the cerebrospinal fluid and intrathecal immunoglobulin (Ig) G synthesis at baseline.

E1 patients had a higher degree of early structural brain damage and disease severity, including disability and impaired evident at baseline, and increased serum neurofilament light and increased intrathecal IgM synthesis at baseline.

“According to these different patterns of disease trajectories, we therefore termed these subsets degenerative E1 and inflammatory E3. Overall, although some of the clinical and paraclinical parameters partially overlapped, our analysis reveals that distinct immunological endophenotypes might have predictive value with regard to clinically relevant disease trajectories,” the researchers wrote.
 

Toward Personalized Care

In addition, during up to 4-year follow-up of some patients, they observed that patients with the inflammatory E3 endophenotype treated with interferon-beta exhibited higher disease progression and MRI activity relative to E3 patients receiving other therapies. These differential effects of interferon-beta were not observed in the other endophenotypes.

With further study and refinement, the hope is to make this test a “clinical reality,” Dr. Wiendl said.

Commenting on the findings, Kimberly O’Neill, MD, clinical instructor, Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, noted that people with MS can have “a broad variety of disease course and outcomes ranging from mild to a very severe and life-altering disease course. At this point, we are not great at predicting who is going to be on which path and also which medication is right for each patient.

“Research like this gives us hope for a more personalized precision medicine in MS,” said Dr. O’Neill, who was not part of the study. “The ideal world would be to have a blood test that could tell their disease course and which treatments will work for an individual patient, but we are certainly not there yet.”

Also providing an outside perspective, Mary Rensel, MD, director of wellness and pediatric MS at the Cleveland Clinic Mellen Center for MS, Cleveland, said, “Precision medicine is our goal and dream in MS care — to be able to do a blood test and know what medicine a patient may or may not respond to and save them years of ongoing symptoms or the risk of disability. This study is a great start.”

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Research Council, and the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Rensel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) has three distinct subtypes based on immune markers in patient’s blood, each with slightly different disease trajectories and responses to therapy, a new study suggests.

With further validation, determining a patient’s blood “immune signature,” or endophenotype, before starting immunomodulatory therapy may help predict clinical disease trajectories and lead to more personalized treatment decisions, investigators said.

“The characterization of an endophenotype at timepoints of diagnosis will help to determine likely trajectory of the disease course but also will help to refine the chosen immune therapy,” said Heinz Wiendl, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Münster, Germany. “This is a rationale way of precision medicine for the future.”

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Degenerative and Inflammatory Subtypes

MS is a highly heterogeneous disorder with different clinical manifestations and disease trajectories, making it a challenge to manage. Whether this heterogeneity is reflected by discrete immune signatures in the blood has been unclear.

To investigate, Dr. Wiendl and a multicenter team comprehensively analyzed the immunological properties of blood samples collected from 309 patients with early MS and an independent validation cohort of 232 patients with early MS.

In both cohorts, they found that cellular immune signatures split into three distinct immunological endophenotypes, dubbed E1, E2, and E3.

E1 is characterized by alterations in the CD4 T-cell compartment, with increases in inflammatory cytokines, namely interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-22, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as earlier structural brain damage, more severe disease, and higher disability.

Alterations in natural killer cells are a hallmark of the E2 subtype, while alterations in the CD8 T cells dominate the E3 subtype.

The different subtypes were associated with distinct clinical disease trajectories. E3 patients displayed a pattern reflecting higher inflammatory disease activity, as illustrated by a higher relapse rate (≥ 2) within the first year from baseline and more frequent use of highly active disease-modifying therapies as first immunomodulatory treatment.

E3 patients also had higher numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline, a higher conversion rate from clinically isolated syndrome to relapsing-remitting MS, and rapid disability accrual within 2 years after baseline.

This endophenotype was also associated with an increase in total cell numbers within the cerebrospinal fluid and intrathecal immunoglobulin (Ig) G synthesis at baseline.

E1 patients had a higher degree of early structural brain damage and disease severity, including disability and impaired evident at baseline, and increased serum neurofilament light and increased intrathecal IgM synthesis at baseline.

“According to these different patterns of disease trajectories, we therefore termed these subsets degenerative E1 and inflammatory E3. Overall, although some of the clinical and paraclinical parameters partially overlapped, our analysis reveals that distinct immunological endophenotypes might have predictive value with regard to clinically relevant disease trajectories,” the researchers wrote.
 

Toward Personalized Care

In addition, during up to 4-year follow-up of some patients, they observed that patients with the inflammatory E3 endophenotype treated with interferon-beta exhibited higher disease progression and MRI activity relative to E3 patients receiving other therapies. These differential effects of interferon-beta were not observed in the other endophenotypes.

With further study and refinement, the hope is to make this test a “clinical reality,” Dr. Wiendl said.

Commenting on the findings, Kimberly O’Neill, MD, clinical instructor, Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, noted that people with MS can have “a broad variety of disease course and outcomes ranging from mild to a very severe and life-altering disease course. At this point, we are not great at predicting who is going to be on which path and also which medication is right for each patient.

“Research like this gives us hope for a more personalized precision medicine in MS,” said Dr. O’Neill, who was not part of the study. “The ideal world would be to have a blood test that could tell their disease course and which treatments will work for an individual patient, but we are certainly not there yet.”

Also providing an outside perspective, Mary Rensel, MD, director of wellness and pediatric MS at the Cleveland Clinic Mellen Center for MS, Cleveland, said, “Precision medicine is our goal and dream in MS care — to be able to do a blood test and know what medicine a patient may or may not respond to and save them years of ongoing symptoms or the risk of disability. This study is a great start.”

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Research Council, and the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Rensel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) has three distinct subtypes based on immune markers in patient’s blood, each with slightly different disease trajectories and responses to therapy, a new study suggests.

With further validation, determining a patient’s blood “immune signature,” or endophenotype, before starting immunomodulatory therapy may help predict clinical disease trajectories and lead to more personalized treatment decisions, investigators said.

“The characterization of an endophenotype at timepoints of diagnosis will help to determine likely trajectory of the disease course but also will help to refine the chosen immune therapy,” said Heinz Wiendl, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Münster, Germany. “This is a rationale way of precision medicine for the future.”

The study was published online in Science Translational Medicine.
 

Degenerative and Inflammatory Subtypes

MS is a highly heterogeneous disorder with different clinical manifestations and disease trajectories, making it a challenge to manage. Whether this heterogeneity is reflected by discrete immune signatures in the blood has been unclear.

To investigate, Dr. Wiendl and a multicenter team comprehensively analyzed the immunological properties of blood samples collected from 309 patients with early MS and an independent validation cohort of 232 patients with early MS.

In both cohorts, they found that cellular immune signatures split into three distinct immunological endophenotypes, dubbed E1, E2, and E3.

E1 is characterized by alterations in the CD4 T-cell compartment, with increases in inflammatory cytokines, namely interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-22, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as earlier structural brain damage, more severe disease, and higher disability.

Alterations in natural killer cells are a hallmark of the E2 subtype, while alterations in the CD8 T cells dominate the E3 subtype.

The different subtypes were associated with distinct clinical disease trajectories. E3 patients displayed a pattern reflecting higher inflammatory disease activity, as illustrated by a higher relapse rate (≥ 2) within the first year from baseline and more frequent use of highly active disease-modifying therapies as first immunomodulatory treatment.

E3 patients also had higher numbers of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline, a higher conversion rate from clinically isolated syndrome to relapsing-remitting MS, and rapid disability accrual within 2 years after baseline.

This endophenotype was also associated with an increase in total cell numbers within the cerebrospinal fluid and intrathecal immunoglobulin (Ig) G synthesis at baseline.

E1 patients had a higher degree of early structural brain damage and disease severity, including disability and impaired evident at baseline, and increased serum neurofilament light and increased intrathecal IgM synthesis at baseline.

“According to these different patterns of disease trajectories, we therefore termed these subsets degenerative E1 and inflammatory E3. Overall, although some of the clinical and paraclinical parameters partially overlapped, our analysis reveals that distinct immunological endophenotypes might have predictive value with regard to clinically relevant disease trajectories,” the researchers wrote.
 

Toward Personalized Care

In addition, during up to 4-year follow-up of some patients, they observed that patients with the inflammatory E3 endophenotype treated with interferon-beta exhibited higher disease progression and MRI activity relative to E3 patients receiving other therapies. These differential effects of interferon-beta were not observed in the other endophenotypes.

With further study and refinement, the hope is to make this test a “clinical reality,” Dr. Wiendl said.

Commenting on the findings, Kimberly O’Neill, MD, clinical instructor, Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, noted that people with MS can have “a broad variety of disease course and outcomes ranging from mild to a very severe and life-altering disease course. At this point, we are not great at predicting who is going to be on which path and also which medication is right for each patient.

“Research like this gives us hope for a more personalized precision medicine in MS,” said Dr. O’Neill, who was not part of the study. “The ideal world would be to have a blood test that could tell their disease course and which treatments will work for an individual patient, but we are certainly not there yet.”

Also providing an outside perspective, Mary Rensel, MD, director of wellness and pediatric MS at the Cleveland Clinic Mellen Center for MS, Cleveland, said, “Precision medicine is our goal and dream in MS care — to be able to do a blood test and know what medicine a patient may or may not respond to and save them years of ongoing symptoms or the risk of disability. This study is a great start.”

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Research Council, and the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Rensel had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — First-line treatment with a combination of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific immune checkpoint inhibitor, and standard chemotherapy provides a survival advantage over placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma,, according to a new study.

Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.

Unmet Need

The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.

He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.

Study Design

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.

In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.

“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS

Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).

Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.

“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).

“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression

In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).

Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable

The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.

During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?

According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.

“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.

Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.

“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.

She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.

“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.

COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.

SAN DIEGO — First-line treatment with a combination of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific immune checkpoint inhibitor, and standard chemotherapy provides a survival advantage over placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma,, according to a new study.

Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.

Unmet Need

The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.

He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.

Study Design

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.

In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.

“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS

Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).

Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.

“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).

“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression

In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).

Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable

The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.

During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?

According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.

“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.

Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.

“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.

She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.

“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.

COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.

SAN DIEGO — First-line treatment with a combination of cadonilimab, a PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific immune checkpoint inhibitor, and standard chemotherapy provides a survival advantage over placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma,, according to a new study.

Jiafu Ji, MD, PhD, presented this and other findings of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMPASSION-15 trial at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The consistent survival benefits across all prespecified PD-L1 expression cutoffs, particularly in patients with low PD-L1 expression, have significant implications for clinical practice by expanding treatment options, improving outcomes for patients with PD-L1–low tumors, influencing guidelines, and stimulating further research in advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treatment,” said Dr. Ji, a principal investigator of this trial, in an interview.

Unmet Need

The incidence of gastric cancer is particularly high in China, but as Dr. Ji discussed in his talk, the treatment options for patients with advanced disease remain limited. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer, not all patients respond to the treatment, explained Dr. Ji, who is a professor of gastrointestinal surgery and president of Peking University Cancer Hospital and Beijing Institute for Cancer Research in China.

He added that the combination of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy has not yet been approved for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer in China, leaving chemotherapy as the only treatment option for Chinese patients.

Study Design

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line cadonilimab plus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, the authors of the COMPASSION-15 trial enrolled 610 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had not received any prior treatments. PD-L1 expression status was not used to exclude patients from the trial.

In a press conference held at AACR 2024, Dr. Ji explained the study rationale, design, and endpoints. He said that patients with tumors without PD-L1 expression typically show little to no benefit from anti–PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and their treatment options are limited to chemotherapy.

“Testing the efficacy of this bispecific antibody in this patient population could provide an alternative treatment approach for them,” he added.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either cadonilimab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy or placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and secondary efficacy endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) in the ITT population, as well as in patients stratified by PD-L1 expression.

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Improves OS

Interim analysis, conducted with a median follow-up of 18.69 months, showed a significant improvement in OS for the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group compared with the chemotherapy-alone group, according to data presented at the press conference. The median OS was 15.0 months in the cadonilimab group versus 10.8 months in the placebo group, representing a 38% reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78, P < .001).

Yelena Y. Janjigian, MD, who not involved in COMPASSION-15, provided critique of the study, during another session at the meeting, in which she discussed the CheckMate 649 trial. She noted that, although the median OS of 15 months in the COMPASSION-15 study was slightly higher than the OS in the CheckMate 649 trial (approximately 14 months), comparing the results of two studies is challenging.

“In the COMPASSION-15 trial, chemotherapy was stopped after [4.5 months], and only 50% of patients received chemotherapy with subsequent treatment — this is not standard and may limit the comparison with other immunotherapy trials,” explained Dr. Janjigian, who is a gastrointestinal oncologist and was a principal investigator in the phase 3 CheckMate 649 immunotherapy trial for advanced gastric cancer.

Importantly, survival benefit with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was observed across all prespecified PD-L1 expression levels, including in patients with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS] less than 5%). In the low PD-L1 expression group (CPS less than 5%), the median OS was 14.8 months in the cadonilimab group compared with 11.8 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.95; P = .011).

“These positive survival outcomes when cadonilimab was combined with chemotherapy may be attributed to synergistic mechanisms of action, enhanced immune responses, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and careful patient selection based on biomarker assessments,” noted Dr. Ji, during an interview. “Targeting multiple pathways using bispecific antibodies provides potential synergistic effects, enhancing anti-tumor activity and improving treatment outcomes.”

Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Reduces the Risk of Tumor Progression

In addition to prolonging OS, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy also provided superior PFS and ORR compared to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The median PFS was 7.0 months in the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy group, versus 5.3 months in the chemotherapy-only group (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65, P < .001), and the ORR was 65.2% versus 48.9%, respectively. Furthermore, the duration of response was longer with cadonilimab plus chemotherapy than with placebo plus chemotherapy (8.8 versus 4.4 months, respectively).

Toxicities Associated With Cadonilimab Plus Standard Chemotherapy Are Manageable

The safety profile of the cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen was manageable, with grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurring in 71.8% of patients in the cadonilimab group and 60.5% of patients in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed.

During an interview, Dr. Ji said that the most common adverse events were endocrine toxicity, skin toxicity, and lung toxicity. “These adverse events were managed through close monitoring, symptom management, and appropriate interventions based on the severity and nature of the toxicity experienced by patients,” he explained. He added that this toxicity profile of cadonilimab is similar to the toxicity profiles of approved PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Implications — A New Treatment Paradigm for Advanced Gastric Cancer?

According to Dr. Ji, the interim results from the cadonilimab study suggest that this novel PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in combination with chemotherapy, could become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, offering a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status.

“The ability of cadonilimab to improve survival outcomes, regardless of PD-L1 status, is a significant advancement, as we have struggled to find effective treatments for patients with low PD-L1 expression in this setting,” he said, during the interview.

Despite these promising findings, Dr. Janjigian highlighted that patient stratification in the COMPASSION-15 study is currently lacking. She explained that biomarkers such as MSI status, T-reg signatures, and HER-2 are important to consider according to data from the CheckMate 649 trial.

“Hazard ratios for patients with T-reg–high tumors were almost 0.6, independent of inflammatory status. These data suggest that we can maybe even cure some patients with PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitors,” she noted.

She added that knowing the status of MSI and HER-2 is clinically important as it can inform clinicians whether they can avoid chemotherapy or add trastuzumab.

“Despite the suboptimal comparator arm, the study is very important and offers a rationale for dual PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade,” Dr. Janjigian concluded.

COMPASSION-15 was funded by Akeso Biopharma, Inc. Dr. Ji reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients. Dr. Janjigian lists relationships with AbbVie, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Arcus Biosciences, Ask-Gene Pharma, Inc., Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd., Bayer, Bristol Myers, Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, and many other companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, National Cancer Institute, and others.

SAN DIEGO — In his role as chief medical officer for Ascension Medical Group–Texas, which employs about 1,000 physicians across every medical specialty, dermatologist Jason S. Reichenberg, MD, MBA, has heard his share of stories about patients who treat medical staff aggressively, incessantly complain, or threaten to file lawsuits for the care or treatment they’ve received.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Reichenberg, professor of dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, shared several tips for managing such difficult patients:

Look for ‘red flags’ that raise concerns. This may include patients’ unrealistic expectations for a cure, “which could be because of their cultural or educational background,” he said. Difficult patients also may view physicians as enemies.

Dr. Reichenberg

“They may quote legal jargon or threaten consequences if there is a bad outcome,” he explained. “They may say, ‘I’m a great reviewer on Yelp and I look forward to giving you a great Yelp review when we finish today.’ They may also have previously sued physicians, or they may tell you that their last physician was horrible.”

Shift into robot mode. In other words, don’t stray from your practice’s protocol by offering special treatment to difficult patients. For example, if a difficult patient shows up 15 minutes late and the office has a policy that patients should be rescheduled if they arrive 10 minutes late, “do not break that policy no matter what, because that’s your protocol,” he advised. “You also do not promise anything you don’t know or that nobody could know. If a difficult patient asks, ‘what is the statistical chance that I’ll get better with this treatment,’ you either say, ‘studies have shown that this is the exact percentage,’ or ‘I don’t know. We’re going to do our best.’”

Set expectations at the outset. “If I walk into the room and the nurse has been in there for 25 minutes doing the intake and I know it’s going to be a long visit, I’ll start by saying, ‘I have 8 minutes to see you today,’ ” Dr. Reichenberg said. “ ‘Whatever we don’t finish today we’ll have to do during a follow-up visit, so let’s please prioritize what we need to do.’ ” Sometimes he sets his smartphone alarm to 8 minutes and when the timer goes off, he’ll say, “I’m so sorry, but I have to go.” For talkative patients, he continued, “I’ll ask, ‘is it okay if I interrupt you if I have a clarifying question?’ That gives you permission to interrupt.”

Blame a third “party” or policy. When patients express anger, find an “enemy” that you can be angry at together. “You might say something like, ‘I’m as frustrated as you are; I can’t believe how broken our health care system is that I have only 8 minutes with you today,’ ” he advised. “Show that you’re on the same side as them.” You could also blame a policy by saying something like, “I’m sorry; I can’t do that for you. My practice has strict rules about that. I’m as frustrated as you are.”

Practice self-regulation. Here, the goal is to delay the time between being triggered by the patient who gets under your skin and your response to that person, such as saying you received “a page or an important text before you walk out of the exam room,” he said. This principle also applies to messages that unreasonable individuals send by e-mail or through messages on their patient portal. “Probably the biggest mistakes I’ve seen from physicians is when they get really angry and they write an angry portal message or e-mail and send it out,” Dr. Reichenberg said. “If I feel triggered, I wait to respond. I’ll sometimes forward [the response] it to my nurse and request that person to send it out the next morning, so the reply reads, ‘Dr. Reichenberg said…’ That gives me the chance to calm down. It also gives the patient a chance to calm down.”

Never worry alone. When struggling to communicate effectively with a difficult patient, he recommends seeking input from a trusted physician colleague. “Better yet, pick up the phone and call the patient’s primary care doctor or another specialist who takes care of that person, and talk about it,” he said. “Figure out if this is your problem or the patient’s problem. They may offer advice on how to handle that person.”

Know when the conflict is untenable. Sometimes it’s best to resign from providing care to difficult patients. “I might write or say something like, ‘I resign from your care. I do not have any expertise to help you with your problem,’ ” Dr. Reichenberg said. “Or, ‘I don’t know that I have the infrastructure to handle the kind of problems you have. I’m not sure we’re the best fit.’ I would suggest that you not give every single detail about why you’re firing them, because the patients could write a step-by-step response, arguing against that.” If you decide to terminate the relationship with a patient, make sure that he or she is not in an acute phase of their illness. “You do not want to get sued for patient abandonment,” he said. “Know your state laws. In general, you’re going to give them a statement of intent to terminate — usually in 30 days — but you have to agree to treat them emergently.” Dr. Reichenberg also provides them with a referral source so they can find a new physician and waives the fee for sending medical records to the new provider. “Also, though it’s not required, I’ll include a statement about the consequences of not receiving care, if I think that they’re [neglecting] their own care,” he said.

Dr. Reichenberg reported having no financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In his role as chief medical officer for Ascension Medical Group–Texas, which employs about 1,000 physicians across every medical specialty, dermatologist Jason S. Reichenberg, MD, MBA, has heard his share of stories about patients who treat medical staff aggressively, incessantly complain, or threaten to file lawsuits for the care or treatment they’ve received.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Reichenberg, professor of dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, shared several tips for managing such difficult patients:

Look for ‘red flags’ that raise concerns. This may include patients’ unrealistic expectations for a cure, “which could be because of their cultural or educational background,” he said. Difficult patients also may view physicians as enemies.

Dr. Reichenberg

“They may quote legal jargon or threaten consequences if there is a bad outcome,” he explained. “They may say, ‘I’m a great reviewer on Yelp and I look forward to giving you a great Yelp review when we finish today.’ They may also have previously sued physicians, or they may tell you that their last physician was horrible.”

Shift into robot mode. In other words, don’t stray from your practice’s protocol by offering special treatment to difficult patients. For example, if a difficult patient shows up 15 minutes late and the office has a policy that patients should be rescheduled if they arrive 10 minutes late, “do not break that policy no matter what, because that’s your protocol,” he advised. “You also do not promise anything you don’t know or that nobody could know. If a difficult patient asks, ‘what is the statistical chance that I’ll get better with this treatment,’ you either say, ‘studies have shown that this is the exact percentage,’ or ‘I don’t know. We’re going to do our best.’”

Set expectations at the outset. “If I walk into the room and the nurse has been in there for 25 minutes doing the intake and I know it’s going to be a long visit, I’ll start by saying, ‘I have 8 minutes to see you today,’ ” Dr. Reichenberg said. “ ‘Whatever we don’t finish today we’ll have to do during a follow-up visit, so let’s please prioritize what we need to do.’ ” Sometimes he sets his smartphone alarm to 8 minutes and when the timer goes off, he’ll say, “I’m so sorry, but I have to go.” For talkative patients, he continued, “I’ll ask, ‘is it okay if I interrupt you if I have a clarifying question?’ That gives you permission to interrupt.”

Blame a third “party” or policy. When patients express anger, find an “enemy” that you can be angry at together. “You might say something like, ‘I’m as frustrated as you are; I can’t believe how broken our health care system is that I have only 8 minutes with you today,’ ” he advised. “Show that you’re on the same side as them.” You could also blame a policy by saying something like, “I’m sorry; I can’t do that for you. My practice has strict rules about that. I’m as frustrated as you are.”

Practice self-regulation. Here, the goal is to delay the time between being triggered by the patient who gets under your skin and your response to that person, such as saying you received “a page or an important text before you walk out of the exam room,” he said. This principle also applies to messages that unreasonable individuals send by e-mail or through messages on their patient portal. “Probably the biggest mistakes I’ve seen from physicians is when they get really angry and they write an angry portal message or e-mail and send it out,” Dr. Reichenberg said. “If I feel triggered, I wait to respond. I’ll sometimes forward [the response] it to my nurse and request that person to send it out the next morning, so the reply reads, ‘Dr. Reichenberg said…’ That gives me the chance to calm down. It also gives the patient a chance to calm down.”

Never worry alone. When struggling to communicate effectively with a difficult patient, he recommends seeking input from a trusted physician colleague. “Better yet, pick up the phone and call the patient’s primary care doctor or another specialist who takes care of that person, and talk about it,” he said. “Figure out if this is your problem or the patient’s problem. They may offer advice on how to handle that person.”

Know when the conflict is untenable. Sometimes it’s best to resign from providing care to difficult patients. “I might write or say something like, ‘I resign from your care. I do not have any expertise to help you with your problem,’ ” Dr. Reichenberg said. “Or, ‘I don’t know that I have the infrastructure to handle the kind of problems you have. I’m not sure we’re the best fit.’ I would suggest that you not give every single detail about why you’re firing them, because the patients could write a step-by-step response, arguing against that.” If you decide to terminate the relationship with a patient, make sure that he or she is not in an acute phase of their illness. “You do not want to get sued for patient abandonment,” he said. “Know your state laws. In general, you’re going to give them a statement of intent to terminate — usually in 30 days — but you have to agree to treat them emergently.” Dr. Reichenberg also provides them with a referral source so they can find a new physician and waives the fee for sending medical records to the new provider. “Also, though it’s not required, I’ll include a statement about the consequences of not receiving care, if I think that they’re [neglecting] their own care,” he said.

Dr. Reichenberg reported having no financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In his role as chief medical officer for Ascension Medical Group–Texas, which employs about 1,000 physicians across every medical specialty, dermatologist Jason S. Reichenberg, MD, MBA, has heard his share of stories about patients who treat medical staff aggressively, incessantly complain, or threaten to file lawsuits for the care or treatment they’ve received.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Reichenberg, professor of dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, shared several tips for managing such difficult patients:

Look for ‘red flags’ that raise concerns. This may include patients’ unrealistic expectations for a cure, “which could be because of their cultural or educational background,” he said. Difficult patients also may view physicians as enemies.

Dr. Reichenberg

“They may quote legal jargon or threaten consequences if there is a bad outcome,” he explained. “They may say, ‘I’m a great reviewer on Yelp and I look forward to giving you a great Yelp review when we finish today.’ They may also have previously sued physicians, or they may tell you that their last physician was horrible.”

Shift into robot mode. In other words, don’t stray from your practice’s protocol by offering special treatment to difficult patients. For example, if a difficult patient shows up 15 minutes late and the office has a policy that patients should be rescheduled if they arrive 10 minutes late, “do not break that policy no matter what, because that’s your protocol,” he advised. “You also do not promise anything you don’t know or that nobody could know. If a difficult patient asks, ‘what is the statistical chance that I’ll get better with this treatment,’ you either say, ‘studies have shown that this is the exact percentage,’ or ‘I don’t know. We’re going to do our best.’”

Set expectations at the outset. “If I walk into the room and the nurse has been in there for 25 minutes doing the intake and I know it’s going to be a long visit, I’ll start by saying, ‘I have 8 minutes to see you today,’ ” Dr. Reichenberg said. “ ‘Whatever we don’t finish today we’ll have to do during a follow-up visit, so let’s please prioritize what we need to do.’ ” Sometimes he sets his smartphone alarm to 8 minutes and when the timer goes off, he’ll say, “I’m so sorry, but I have to go.” For talkative patients, he continued, “I’ll ask, ‘is it okay if I interrupt you if I have a clarifying question?’ That gives you permission to interrupt.”

Blame a third “party” or policy. When patients express anger, find an “enemy” that you can be angry at together. “You might say something like, ‘I’m as frustrated as you are; I can’t believe how broken our health care system is that I have only 8 minutes with you today,’ ” he advised. “Show that you’re on the same side as them.” You could also blame a policy by saying something like, “I’m sorry; I can’t do that for you. My practice has strict rules about that. I’m as frustrated as you are.”

Practice self-regulation. Here, the goal is to delay the time between being triggered by the patient who gets under your skin and your response to that person, such as saying you received “a page or an important text before you walk out of the exam room,” he said. This principle also applies to messages that unreasonable individuals send by e-mail or through messages on their patient portal. “Probably the biggest mistakes I’ve seen from physicians is when they get really angry and they write an angry portal message or e-mail and send it out,” Dr. Reichenberg said. “If I feel triggered, I wait to respond. I’ll sometimes forward [the response] it to my nurse and request that person to send it out the next morning, so the reply reads, ‘Dr. Reichenberg said…’ That gives me the chance to calm down. It also gives the patient a chance to calm down.”

Never worry alone. When struggling to communicate effectively with a difficult patient, he recommends seeking input from a trusted physician colleague. “Better yet, pick up the phone and call the patient’s primary care doctor or another specialist who takes care of that person, and talk about it,” he said. “Figure out if this is your problem or the patient’s problem. They may offer advice on how to handle that person.”

Know when the conflict is untenable. Sometimes it’s best to resign from providing care to difficult patients. “I might write or say something like, ‘I resign from your care. I do not have any expertise to help you with your problem,’ ” Dr. Reichenberg said. “Or, ‘I don’t know that I have the infrastructure to handle the kind of problems you have. I’m not sure we’re the best fit.’ I would suggest that you not give every single detail about why you’re firing them, because the patients could write a step-by-step response, arguing against that.” If you decide to terminate the relationship with a patient, make sure that he or she is not in an acute phase of their illness. “You do not want to get sued for patient abandonment,” he said. “Know your state laws. In general, you’re going to give them a statement of intent to terminate — usually in 30 days — but you have to agree to treat them emergently.” Dr. Reichenberg also provides them with a referral source so they can find a new physician and waives the fee for sending medical records to the new provider. “Also, though it’s not required, I’ll include a statement about the consequences of not receiving care, if I think that they’re [neglecting] their own care,” he said.

Dr. Reichenberg reported having no financial disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Higher consumption of ultraprocessed food (UPF) is associated with an increased risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), with a significant dose-response relationship.

METHODOLOGY:

• The simultaneous rise in UPF consumption and IBS in recent years is concerning, but there is a lack of epidemiologic evidence regarding the link between UPF consumption and the risk of developing IBS.
• This study included 178,711 participants without IBS, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, or cancer (mean age, 55.8 years; 53.1% women) from the UK Biobank who had completed a 24-hour diet recall questionnaire over five cycles.
• The researchers used the NOVA system to categorize food into four groups, ranging from unprocessed or minimally processed food to UPF. They calculated consumption of food in each group on the basis of portion sizes and UPF consumption as a percentage of total diet intake (as grams per day) using data from participants who completed at least two dietary cycles.
• The primary outcome was incident IBS.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median of 11.3 years of follow-up, 2690 incident IBS cases were reported.
• The mean UPF consumption was 21% of the total diet.
• For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the risk for IBS also increased by 8%.
• The individuals in the highest quartile of UPF consumption had about a 20% higher risk for IBS than those in the lowest quartile.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that avoiding or lowering UPF consumption could be considered as a potential strategy to help reduce the increasing burden of IBS,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shanshan Wu, PhD, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease, Beijing, China, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Questionnaire-based data could introduce misclassification and recall bias. Lifestyle factors (eg, smoking) or nutritional factors (eg, total intake of protein, fat, and carbohydrates) that may confound the association were not considered. The observational study design has inherent bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Beijing Nova Program, National Key Research and Development Program of China, and Beijing Science and Technology Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher consumption of ultraprocessed food (UPF) is associated with an increased risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), with a significant dose-response relationship.

METHODOLOGY:

• The simultaneous rise in UPF consumption and IBS in recent years is concerning, but there is a lack of epidemiologic evidence regarding the link between UPF consumption and the risk of developing IBS.
• This study included 178,711 participants without IBS, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, or cancer (mean age, 55.8 years; 53.1% women) from the UK Biobank who had completed a 24-hour diet recall questionnaire over five cycles.
• The researchers used the NOVA system to categorize food into four groups, ranging from unprocessed or minimally processed food to UPF. They calculated consumption of food in each group on the basis of portion sizes and UPF consumption as a percentage of total diet intake (as grams per day) using data from participants who completed at least two dietary cycles.
• The primary outcome was incident IBS.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median of 11.3 years of follow-up, 2690 incident IBS cases were reported.
• The mean UPF consumption was 21% of the total diet.
• For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the risk for IBS also increased by 8%.
• The individuals in the highest quartile of UPF consumption had about a 20% higher risk for IBS than those in the lowest quartile.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that avoiding or lowering UPF consumption could be considered as a potential strategy to help reduce the increasing burden of IBS,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shanshan Wu, PhD, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease, Beijing, China, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Questionnaire-based data could introduce misclassification and recall bias. Lifestyle factors (eg, smoking) or nutritional factors (eg, total intake of protein, fat, and carbohydrates) that may confound the association were not considered. The observational study design has inherent bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Beijing Nova Program, National Key Research and Development Program of China, and Beijing Science and Technology Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher consumption of ultraprocessed food (UPF) is associated with an increased risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), with a significant dose-response relationship.

METHODOLOGY:

• The simultaneous rise in UPF consumption and IBS in recent years is concerning, but there is a lack of epidemiologic evidence regarding the link between UPF consumption and the risk of developing IBS.
• This study included 178,711 participants without IBS, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, or cancer (mean age, 55.8 years; 53.1% women) from the UK Biobank who had completed a 24-hour diet recall questionnaire over five cycles.
• The researchers used the NOVA system to categorize food into four groups, ranging from unprocessed or minimally processed food to UPF. They calculated consumption of food in each group on the basis of portion sizes and UPF consumption as a percentage of total diet intake (as grams per day) using data from participants who completed at least two dietary cycles.
• The primary outcome was incident IBS.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median of 11.3 years of follow-up, 2690 incident IBS cases were reported.
• The mean UPF consumption was 21% of the total diet.
• For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the risk for IBS also increased by 8%.
• The individuals in the highest quartile of UPF consumption had about a 20% higher risk for IBS than those in the lowest quartile.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that avoiding or lowering UPF consumption could be considered as a potential strategy to help reduce the increasing burden of IBS,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Shanshan Wu, PhD, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease, Beijing, China, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Questionnaire-based data could introduce misclassification and recall bias. Lifestyle factors (eg, smoking) or nutritional factors (eg, total intake of protein, fat, and carbohydrates) that may confound the association were not considered. The observational study design has inherent bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Beijing Nova Program, National Key Research and Development Program of China, and Beijing Science and Technology Project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the next few years, expect intradermal injections of botulinum toxin A for the improvement in the appearance of pores, sebum, skin texture, and rosacea to gain a foothold in dermatology practices, Jeremy B. Green, MD, predicts.

“This technique is more popular in Asia than it is here in the US,” Dr. Green, who practices dermatology in Coral Gables, Florida, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. As opposed to intramuscular injections, “it’s an intradermal delivery, so you use numbing cream prior, and you’re injecting botulinum toxin A nearly parallel to the skin surface with the bevel of the needle up,” he said. “You want to use a precise product. It’s uncomfortable delivering volume so superficially due to the tissue distention, so I also use a massager. I inject approximately 0.05 mL to 0.1 mL per point. This does really work.”

This mode of delivery was evaluated in a prospective, double-blind, split-face study in South Korea, which enrolled 18 volunteers who received an intradermal injection of botulinum toxin A into one cheek and normal saline into the contralateral side as a control. Participants were between 30 and 54 years of age and were seen at the clinic 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the injection. At each visit, investigators took photographs, used a facial analyzer to evaluate the pores and wrinkles of the infraorbital area, and used a Sebumeter to evaluate sebum secretions from both cheeks. Improvement or aggravation in skin texture was evaluated by both volunteers and clinicians on a numeric scale from –4 (severe aggravation) to +4 (marked improvement) at each visit, and following photographic review, the wrinkle score of the nasolabial fold was graded on a 5-point scale.

The researchers observed no significant effects on the wrinkles of the infraorbital area and on sebum secretion. However, on the side where botulinum toxin A was injected, there were significant improvements in the wrinkles of the nasolabial fold and skin texture, they reported. The effects on nasolabial fold wrinkles lasted 12 weeks, effects on skin texture lasted 8 weeks, and improvement in pore size was only observed at week 2, they wrote. One serious adverse event occurred: a case of facial palsy after the injection of 30 units of botulinum toxin A in one cheek. However, injection of 20 units of botulinum toxin A in one cheek was not associated with any adverse events.

“The duration of these treatments is yet to be determined, but I think this is definitely going to gain popularity in the US,” said Dr. Green, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Miami Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery.
 

Recently Approved Neurotoxin

He also discussed letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg (Letybo), an injectable neurotoxin long used in South Korea, which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar (frown) lines in adults on March 4, 2024. Approval was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg that enrolled more than 1,000 individuals in the United States and Europe.

“This is the sixth approved neurotoxin in the US,” Dr. Green said. “It is derived from the CBFC26 strain of Clostridium botulinum, and it’s a purified 900 kDa type A toxin complex with human serum albumin and sodium chloride as its excipients.” It comes in a 50-unit or 100-unit vial and requires refrigeration. “To me, the most fascinating thing about this product is that it has been the number-one selling botulinum toxin on the South Korea market for the last 5 years,” he said. “But what do we know about its characteristics?”

In a non-inferiority trial, Chinese researchers enrolled 500 patients with moderate to severe glabellar wrinkles to investigate the efficacy and safety of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg and onabotulinumtoxinA. Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive 20 U of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg or onabotulinumtoxinA and then observed them for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in the proportion of study participants who received a score of 0 or 1 for glabellar wrinkles on a four-point photographic evaluation scale, as assessed by an evaluator at maximum frown at 4 weeks.

At week 4, 88.49% of participants in the letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg arm achieved a score of 0 or 1 for glabellar wrinkles, compared with 87.39% of those in the onabotulinumtoxinA arm (P = .7469). No significant differences were observed for secondary efficacy or safety endpoints between the two treatments. “It will be interesting to see how this product does when it’s available to us,” Dr. Green said.

Another potential newcomer is ready-to-use liquid botulinum neurotoxin. RelabotulinumtoxinA is a complex, protein-free, ready-to-use liquid botulinum toxin A designed to avoid the traditional requirement to reconstitute it from powder, according to Galderma. It features a saline phosphate buffer solution, so it contains no human or animal-derived excipients, Dr. Green pointed out, and it eliminates the variability, errors, and risks associated with reconstitution.

“There was a report in the neurology literature of botulinum toxin being reconstituted with sterile water for cervical dystonia,” he noted. “When this was injected, it was excruciatingly painful, because it created an osmotic gradient within the muscle. So, if we can take a step away from human error, that would be a good thing.”

To date, Dr. Green said, four phase 3 trials of relabotulinumtoxinA involving more than 1,900 patients have been conducted in the United States and Canada evaluating its use for glabellar frown lines and lateral canthal lines, “and the data is impressive,” he said. This product is still investigational, said Dr. Green, who has not had experience injecting it in the clinical trial program.

The idea of a rapid onset botulinum toxin is also emerging. TrenibotulinumtoxinE, which is being developed by Allergan, “is similar to a type A neurotoxin,” Dr. Green said. “It inhibits neuromuscular transmission via presynaptic vesicular protein synaptosomal-associated protein (SNAP)-25 but at a different cleavage site. It has a faster onset — within one day — but a shorter duration — 3-4 weeks.”

In a dose escalation study of its use for glabellar frown lines, 80% of participants achieved a two-grade investigator-rated improvement in glabellar frown line severity at maximum frown at the highest dose. The maximum clinical effect of trenibotulinumtoxinE was seen within 24 hours and lasted between 14 and 30 days.

“The question is, if it is approved by the FDA, where would this product fit in our practices?” Dr. Green asked. “The effect is gone in 3 weeks as opposed to 4 months,” so this may be an option to recommend for someone who is reticent to try neurotoxins, he said, “or a patient who comes to you on a Friday and says, ‘I have a gala tomorrow night.’ ”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan and Galderma.

SAN DIEGO — In the next few years, expect intradermal injections of botulinum toxin A for the improvement in the appearance of pores, sebum, skin texture, and rosacea to gain a foothold in dermatology practices, Jeremy B. Green, MD, predicts.

“This technique is more popular in Asia than it is here in the US,” Dr. Green, who practices dermatology in Coral Gables, Florida, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. As opposed to intramuscular injections, “it’s an intradermal delivery, so you use numbing cream prior, and you’re injecting botulinum toxin A nearly parallel to the skin surface with the bevel of the needle up,” he said. “You want to use a precise product. It’s uncomfortable delivering volume so superficially due to the tissue distention, so I also use a massager. I inject approximately 0.05 mL to 0.1 mL per point. This does really work.”

This mode of delivery was evaluated in a prospective, double-blind, split-face study in South Korea, which enrolled 18 volunteers who received an intradermal injection of botulinum toxin A into one cheek and normal saline into the contralateral side as a control. Participants were between 30 and 54 years of age and were seen at the clinic 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the injection. At each visit, investigators took photographs, used a facial analyzer to evaluate the pores and wrinkles of the infraorbital area, and used a Sebumeter to evaluate sebum secretions from both cheeks. Improvement or aggravation in skin texture was evaluated by both volunteers and clinicians on a numeric scale from –4 (severe aggravation) to +4 (marked improvement) at each visit, and following photographic review, the wrinkle score of the nasolabial fold was graded on a 5-point scale.

The researchers observed no significant effects on the wrinkles of the infraorbital area and on sebum secretion. However, on the side where botulinum toxin A was injected, there were significant improvements in the wrinkles of the nasolabial fold and skin texture, they reported. The effects on nasolabial fold wrinkles lasted 12 weeks, effects on skin texture lasted 8 weeks, and improvement in pore size was only observed at week 2, they wrote. One serious adverse event occurred: a case of facial palsy after the injection of 30 units of botulinum toxin A in one cheek. However, injection of 20 units of botulinum toxin A in one cheek was not associated with any adverse events.

“The duration of these treatments is yet to be determined, but I think this is definitely going to gain popularity in the US,” said Dr. Green, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Miami Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery.
 

Recently Approved Neurotoxin

He also discussed letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg (Letybo), an injectable neurotoxin long used in South Korea, which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar (frown) lines in adults on March 4, 2024. Approval was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg that enrolled more than 1,000 individuals in the United States and Europe.

“This is the sixth approved neurotoxin in the US,” Dr. Green said. “It is derived from the CBFC26 strain of Clostridium botulinum, and it’s a purified 900 kDa type A toxin complex with human serum albumin and sodium chloride as its excipients.” It comes in a 50-unit or 100-unit vial and requires refrigeration. “To me, the most fascinating thing about this product is that it has been the number-one selling botulinum toxin on the South Korea market for the last 5 years,” he said. “But what do we know about its characteristics?”

In a non-inferiority trial, Chinese researchers enrolled 500 patients with moderate to severe glabellar wrinkles to investigate the efficacy and safety of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg and onabotulinumtoxinA. Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive 20 U of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg or onabotulinumtoxinA and then observed them for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in the proportion of study participants who received a score of 0 or 1 for glabellar wrinkles on a four-point photographic evaluation scale, as assessed by an evaluator at maximum frown at 4 weeks.

At week 4, 88.49% of participants in the letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg arm achieved a score of 0 or 1 for glabellar wrinkles, compared with 87.39% of those in the onabotulinumtoxinA arm (P = .7469). No significant differences were observed for secondary efficacy or safety endpoints between the two treatments. “It will be interesting to see how this product does when it’s available to us,” Dr. Green said.

Another potential newcomer is ready-to-use liquid botulinum neurotoxin. RelabotulinumtoxinA is a complex, protein-free, ready-to-use liquid botulinum toxin A designed to avoid the traditional requirement to reconstitute it from powder, according to Galderma. It features a saline phosphate buffer solution, so it contains no human or animal-derived excipients, Dr. Green pointed out, and it eliminates the variability, errors, and risks associated with reconstitution.

“There was a report in the neurology literature of botulinum toxin being reconstituted with sterile water for cervical dystonia,” he noted. “When this was injected, it was excruciatingly painful, because it created an osmotic gradient within the muscle. So, if we can take a step away from human error, that would be a good thing.”

To date, Dr. Green said, four phase 3 trials of relabotulinumtoxinA involving more than 1,900 patients have been conducted in the United States and Canada evaluating its use for glabellar frown lines and lateral canthal lines, “and the data is impressive,” he said. This product is still investigational, said Dr. Green, who has not had experience injecting it in the clinical trial program.

The idea of a rapid onset botulinum toxin is also emerging. TrenibotulinumtoxinE, which is being developed by Allergan, “is similar to a type A neurotoxin,” Dr. Green said. “It inhibits neuromuscular transmission via presynaptic vesicular protein synaptosomal-associated protein (SNAP)-25 but at a different cleavage site. It has a faster onset — within one day — but a shorter duration — 3-4 weeks.”

In a dose escalation study of its use for glabellar frown lines, 80% of participants achieved a two-grade investigator-rated improvement in glabellar frown line severity at maximum frown at the highest dose. The maximum clinical effect of trenibotulinumtoxinE was seen within 24 hours and lasted between 14 and 30 days.

“The question is, if it is approved by the FDA, where would this product fit in our practices?” Dr. Green asked. “The effect is gone in 3 weeks as opposed to 4 months,” so this may be an option to recommend for someone who is reticent to try neurotoxins, he said, “or a patient who comes to you on a Friday and says, ‘I have a gala tomorrow night.’ ”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan and Galderma.

SAN DIEGO — In the next few years, expect intradermal injections of botulinum toxin A for the improvement in the appearance of pores, sebum, skin texture, and rosacea to gain a foothold in dermatology practices, Jeremy B. Green, MD, predicts.

“This technique is more popular in Asia than it is here in the US,” Dr. Green, who practices dermatology in Coral Gables, Florida, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. As opposed to intramuscular injections, “it’s an intradermal delivery, so you use numbing cream prior, and you’re injecting botulinum toxin A nearly parallel to the skin surface with the bevel of the needle up,” he said. “You want to use a precise product. It’s uncomfortable delivering volume so superficially due to the tissue distention, so I also use a massager. I inject approximately 0.05 mL to 0.1 mL per point. This does really work.”

This mode of delivery was evaluated in a prospective, double-blind, split-face study in South Korea, which enrolled 18 volunteers who received an intradermal injection of botulinum toxin A into one cheek and normal saline into the contralateral side as a control. Participants were between 30 and 54 years of age and were seen at the clinic 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the injection. At each visit, investigators took photographs, used a facial analyzer to evaluate the pores and wrinkles of the infraorbital area, and used a Sebumeter to evaluate sebum secretions from both cheeks. Improvement or aggravation in skin texture was evaluated by both volunteers and clinicians on a numeric scale from –4 (severe aggravation) to +4 (marked improvement) at each visit, and following photographic review, the wrinkle score of the nasolabial fold was graded on a 5-point scale.

The researchers observed no significant effects on the wrinkles of the infraorbital area and on sebum secretion. However, on the side where botulinum toxin A was injected, there were significant improvements in the wrinkles of the nasolabial fold and skin texture, they reported. The effects on nasolabial fold wrinkles lasted 12 weeks, effects on skin texture lasted 8 weeks, and improvement in pore size was only observed at week 2, they wrote. One serious adverse event occurred: a case of facial palsy after the injection of 30 units of botulinum toxin A in one cheek. However, injection of 20 units of botulinum toxin A in one cheek was not associated with any adverse events.

“The duration of these treatments is yet to be determined, but I think this is definitely going to gain popularity in the US,” said Dr. Green, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Miami Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery.
 

Recently Approved Neurotoxin

He also discussed letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg (Letybo), an injectable neurotoxin long used in South Korea, which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar (frown) lines in adults on March 4, 2024. Approval was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg that enrolled more than 1,000 individuals in the United States and Europe.

“This is the sixth approved neurotoxin in the US,” Dr. Green said. “It is derived from the CBFC26 strain of Clostridium botulinum, and it’s a purified 900 kDa type A toxin complex with human serum albumin and sodium chloride as its excipients.” It comes in a 50-unit or 100-unit vial and requires refrigeration. “To me, the most fascinating thing about this product is that it has been the number-one selling botulinum toxin on the South Korea market for the last 5 years,” he said. “But what do we know about its characteristics?”

In a non-inferiority trial, Chinese researchers enrolled 500 patients with moderate to severe glabellar wrinkles to investigate the efficacy and safety of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg and onabotulinumtoxinA. Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive 20 U of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg or onabotulinumtoxinA and then observed them for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in the proportion of study participants who received a score of 0 or 1 for glabellar wrinkles on a four-point photographic evaluation scale, as assessed by an evaluator at maximum frown at 4 weeks.

At week 4, 88.49% of participants in the letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg arm achieved a score of 0 or 1 for glabellar wrinkles, compared with 87.39% of those in the onabotulinumtoxinA arm (P = .7469). No significant differences were observed for secondary efficacy or safety endpoints between the two treatments. “It will be interesting to see how this product does when it’s available to us,” Dr. Green said.

Another potential newcomer is ready-to-use liquid botulinum neurotoxin. RelabotulinumtoxinA is a complex, protein-free, ready-to-use liquid botulinum toxin A designed to avoid the traditional requirement to reconstitute it from powder, according to Galderma. It features a saline phosphate buffer solution, so it contains no human or animal-derived excipients, Dr. Green pointed out, and it eliminates the variability, errors, and risks associated with reconstitution.

“There was a report in the neurology literature of botulinum toxin being reconstituted with sterile water for cervical dystonia,” he noted. “When this was injected, it was excruciatingly painful, because it created an osmotic gradient within the muscle. So, if we can take a step away from human error, that would be a good thing.”

To date, Dr. Green said, four phase 3 trials of relabotulinumtoxinA involving more than 1,900 patients have been conducted in the United States and Canada evaluating its use for glabellar frown lines and lateral canthal lines, “and the data is impressive,” he said. This product is still investigational, said Dr. Green, who has not had experience injecting it in the clinical trial program.

The idea of a rapid onset botulinum toxin is also emerging. TrenibotulinumtoxinE, which is being developed by Allergan, “is similar to a type A neurotoxin,” Dr. Green said. “It inhibits neuromuscular transmission via presynaptic vesicular protein synaptosomal-associated protein (SNAP)-25 but at a different cleavage site. It has a faster onset — within one day — but a shorter duration — 3-4 weeks.”

In a dose escalation study of its use for glabellar frown lines, 80% of participants achieved a two-grade investigator-rated improvement in glabellar frown line severity at maximum frown at the highest dose. The maximum clinical effect of trenibotulinumtoxinE was seen within 24 hours and lasted between 14 and 30 days.

“The question is, if it is approved by the FDA, where would this product fit in our practices?” Dr. Green asked. “The effect is gone in 3 weeks as opposed to 4 months,” so this may be an option to recommend for someone who is reticent to try neurotoxins, he said, “or a patient who comes to you on a Friday and says, ‘I have a gala tomorrow night.’ ”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan and Galderma.

Gut bacteria predictive of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and fat mass are different in men and women, and therefore, interventions to prevent obesity may need to be different, as well, new research suggested.

Metagenomic analyses of fecal samples and metabolomic analyses of serum samples from 361 volunteers in Spain showed that an imbalance in specific bacterial strains likely play an important role in the onset and development of obesity, and that there are “considerable differences” between the sexes, said lead study author Paula Aranaz, MD, Centre for Nutrition Research, at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

“We are still far from knowing the magnitude of the effect that the microbiota [bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa] has on our metabolic health and, therefore, on the greater or lesser risk of suffering from obesity,” Dr. Aranaz told this news organization.

“However,” she said, “what does seem clear is that the microorganisms of our intestine perform a crucial role in the way we metabolize nutrients and, therefore, influence the compounds and molecules that circulate through our body, affecting different organs and tissues, and our general metabolic health.”

The study will be presented at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2024, to be held in Venice, Italy, from May 12 to 15. The abstract is now available online.

Variation in Bacteria Species, Abundance

The researchers examined the fecal metabolome of 361 adult volunteers (median age, 44; 70%, women) from the Spanish Obekit randomized trial, which investigated the relationship between genetic variants and how participants responded to a low-calorie diet.

A total of 65 participants were normal weight, 110 with overweight, and 186 with obesity. They were matched for sex and age and classified according to an obesity (OB) index as LOW or HIGH.

LOW included those with a BMI ≤ 30 kg/m², fat mass percentage ≤ 25% (women) or ≤ 32% (men), and waist circumference ≤ 88 cm (women) or ≤ 102 cm (men). HIGH included those with a BMI > 30 kg/m², fat mass > 25% (women) or > 32% (men), and waist circumference > 88 cm (women) or > 102 cm (men).

Genetic profiling to identify the different types, composition, diversity, and relative abundance of bacteria in the stool samples showed that those with a HIGH OB index had significantly lower levels of Christensenella minuta, a bacterium linked to leanness and health.

In men, a greater abundance of Parabacteroides helcogenes and Campylobacter canadensis species was associated with higher BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference.

By contrast, in women, a greater abundance of Prevotella micans, P brevis, and P sacharolitica was predictive of higher BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference.

Untargeted metabolomic analyses revealed variation in the abundance of certain metabolites in participants with a HIGH OB index — notably, higher levels of phospholipids (implicated in the development of metabolic disease and modulators of insulin sensitivity) and sphingolipids, which play a role in the development of diabetes and the emergence of vascular complications.

“We can reduce the risk of metabolic diseases by modulating the gut microbiome through nutritional and lifestyle factors, including dietary patterns, foods, exercise, probiotics, and postbiotics,” Dr. Aranaz said. Which modifications can and should be made “depend on many factors, including the host genetics, endocrine system, sex, and age.”

The researchers currently are working to try to relate the identified metabolites to the bacterial species that could be producing them and to characterize the biological effect that these species and their metabolites exert on the organism, Dr. Aranaz added.

Ultimately, she said, “we would like to [design] a microbiota/metabolomic test that can be used in clinical practice to identify human enterotypes and to personalize the dietary strategies to minimize the health risks related to gut dysbiosis.”

No funding was reported. Dr. Aranaz declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Gut bacteria predictive of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and fat mass are different in men and women, and therefore, interventions to prevent obesity may need to be different, as well, new research suggested.

Metagenomic analyses of fecal samples and metabolomic analyses of serum samples from 361 volunteers in Spain showed that an imbalance in specific bacterial strains likely play an important role in the onset and development of obesity, and that there are “considerable differences” between the sexes, said lead study author Paula Aranaz, MD, Centre for Nutrition Research, at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

“We are still far from knowing the magnitude of the effect that the microbiota [bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa] has on our metabolic health and, therefore, on the greater or lesser risk of suffering from obesity,” Dr. Aranaz told this news organization.

“However,” she said, “what does seem clear is that the microorganisms of our intestine perform a crucial role in the way we metabolize nutrients and, therefore, influence the compounds and molecules that circulate through our body, affecting different organs and tissues, and our general metabolic health.”

The study will be presented at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2024, to be held in Venice, Italy, from May 12 to 15. The abstract is now available online.

Variation in Bacteria Species, Abundance

The researchers examined the fecal metabolome of 361 adult volunteers (median age, 44; 70%, women) from the Spanish Obekit randomized trial, which investigated the relationship between genetic variants and how participants responded to a low-calorie diet.

A total of 65 participants were normal weight, 110 with overweight, and 186 with obesity. They were matched for sex and age and classified according to an obesity (OB) index as LOW or HIGH.

LOW included those with a BMI ≤ 30 kg/m², fat mass percentage ≤ 25% (women) or ≤ 32% (men), and waist circumference ≤ 88 cm (women) or ≤ 102 cm (men). HIGH included those with a BMI > 30 kg/m², fat mass > 25% (women) or > 32% (men), and waist circumference > 88 cm (women) or > 102 cm (men).

Genetic profiling to identify the different types, composition, diversity, and relative abundance of bacteria in the stool samples showed that those with a HIGH OB index had significantly lower levels of Christensenella minuta, a bacterium linked to leanness and health.

In men, a greater abundance of Parabacteroides helcogenes and Campylobacter canadensis species was associated with higher BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference.

By contrast, in women, a greater abundance of Prevotella micans, P brevis, and P sacharolitica was predictive of higher BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference.

Untargeted metabolomic analyses revealed variation in the abundance of certain metabolites in participants with a HIGH OB index — notably, higher levels of phospholipids (implicated in the development of metabolic disease and modulators of insulin sensitivity) and sphingolipids, which play a role in the development of diabetes and the emergence of vascular complications.

“We can reduce the risk of metabolic diseases by modulating the gut microbiome through nutritional and lifestyle factors, including dietary patterns, foods, exercise, probiotics, and postbiotics,” Dr. Aranaz said. Which modifications can and should be made “depend on many factors, including the host genetics, endocrine system, sex, and age.”

The researchers currently are working to try to relate the identified metabolites to the bacterial species that could be producing them and to characterize the biological effect that these species and their metabolites exert on the organism, Dr. Aranaz added.

Ultimately, she said, “we would like to [design] a microbiota/metabolomic test that can be used in clinical practice to identify human enterotypes and to personalize the dietary strategies to minimize the health risks related to gut dysbiosis.”

No funding was reported. Dr. Aranaz declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Gut bacteria predictive of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and fat mass are different in men and women, and therefore, interventions to prevent obesity may need to be different, as well, new research suggested.

Metagenomic analyses of fecal samples and metabolomic analyses of serum samples from 361 volunteers in Spain showed that an imbalance in specific bacterial strains likely play an important role in the onset and development of obesity, and that there are “considerable differences” between the sexes, said lead study author Paula Aranaz, MD, Centre for Nutrition Research, at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

“We are still far from knowing the magnitude of the effect that the microbiota [bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa] has on our metabolic health and, therefore, on the greater or lesser risk of suffering from obesity,” Dr. Aranaz told this news organization.

“However,” she said, “what does seem clear is that the microorganisms of our intestine perform a crucial role in the way we metabolize nutrients and, therefore, influence the compounds and molecules that circulate through our body, affecting different organs and tissues, and our general metabolic health.”

The study will be presented at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2024, to be held in Venice, Italy, from May 12 to 15. The abstract is now available online.

Variation in Bacteria Species, Abundance

The researchers examined the fecal metabolome of 361 adult volunteers (median age, 44; 70%, women) from the Spanish Obekit randomized trial, which investigated the relationship between genetic variants and how participants responded to a low-calorie diet.

A total of 65 participants were normal weight, 110 with overweight, and 186 with obesity. They were matched for sex and age and classified according to an obesity (OB) index as LOW or HIGH.

LOW included those with a BMI ≤ 30 kg/m², fat mass percentage ≤ 25% (women) or ≤ 32% (men), and waist circumference ≤ 88 cm (women) or ≤ 102 cm (men). HIGH included those with a BMI > 30 kg/m², fat mass > 25% (women) or > 32% (men), and waist circumference > 88 cm (women) or > 102 cm (men).

Genetic profiling to identify the different types, composition, diversity, and relative abundance of bacteria in the stool samples showed that those with a HIGH OB index had significantly lower levels of Christensenella minuta, a bacterium linked to leanness and health.

In men, a greater abundance of Parabacteroides helcogenes and Campylobacter canadensis species was associated with higher BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference.

By contrast, in women, a greater abundance of Prevotella micans, P brevis, and P sacharolitica was predictive of higher BMI, fat mass, and waist circumference.

Untargeted metabolomic analyses revealed variation in the abundance of certain metabolites in participants with a HIGH OB index — notably, higher levels of phospholipids (implicated in the development of metabolic disease and modulators of insulin sensitivity) and sphingolipids, which play a role in the development of diabetes and the emergence of vascular complications.

“We can reduce the risk of metabolic diseases by modulating the gut microbiome through nutritional and lifestyle factors, including dietary patterns, foods, exercise, probiotics, and postbiotics,” Dr. Aranaz said. Which modifications can and should be made “depend on many factors, including the host genetics, endocrine system, sex, and age.”

The researchers currently are working to try to relate the identified metabolites to the bacterial species that could be producing them and to characterize the biological effect that these species and their metabolites exert on the organism, Dr. Aranaz added.

Ultimately, she said, “we would like to [design] a microbiota/metabolomic test that can be used in clinical practice to identify human enterotypes and to personalize the dietary strategies to minimize the health risks related to gut dysbiosis.”

No funding was reported. Dr. Aranaz declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Little blue pill meets a little blue light.

A digital application can improve erectile function, according to new research presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) Annual Congress on April 8, 2024.

Researchers developed a 12-week, self-managed program to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). The program is delivered to patients’ mobile devices and encourages users to do cardiovascular training, pelvic floor exercises, and physiotherapy. It also provides information about ED, sexual therapy, and stress management.

“The treatment of ED through physical activity and/or lifestyle changes is recommended in current European guidelines but is not well established in clinical practice,” according to the researchers.

App or Waitlist

The app, known as Kranus Edera, was created by Kranus Health. It is available by prescription in Germany and France.

To study the effectiveness of the app, investigators conducted a randomized controlled trial at the University Hospital Münster in Germany.

The study included 241 men who had scores of 21 or less on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5).

About half of the participants were randomly assigned to get the app. The rest were placed on a waiting list for the technology and served as a control group.

After 12 weeks, those who received the app reported significantly greater improvement on the IIEF-5, with a gain of 4.5 points vs a 0.2-point improvement for men in the control group (P < .0001).

Men who received the app also reported gains in measures of quality of life (20.5 vs −0.04) and patient activation (11.1 vs 0.64).

Nearly nine in 10 people who used the app did so several times per week, the researchers reported.

Sabine Kliesch, MD, with University Hospital Münster, led the study, which was presented at a poster session on April 8 at the EAU Congress in Paris.

Fully Reimbursed in Germany

In Germany, Kranus Edera has been included on a government list of digital health apps that are fully reimbursed by insurers, partly based on the results of the clinical trial. The cost there is €235 (about $255).

Patients typically notice improvements in 2-4 weeks, according to the company’s website. Patients who are taking a phosphodiesterase-5 enzyme inhibitor for ED may continue taking the medication, although they may no longer need it or they may be able to reduce the dose after treatment with the app, it says.

Kranus also has virtual treatments for incontinence in women and voiding dysfunction.

The app is meant to save doctors time by providing patients with detailed explanations and guidance within the app itself, said Laura Wiemer, MD, senior medical director of Kranus.

The app’s modules help reinforce guideline-recommended approaches to the treatment of ED “in playful ways with awards, motivational messages, and individual adjustments to help achieve better adherence and compliance of the patient,” Dr. Wiemer told this news organization.

Kranus plans to expand to the United States in 2024, she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Little blue pill meets a little blue light.

A digital application can improve erectile function, according to new research presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) Annual Congress on April 8, 2024.

Researchers developed a 12-week, self-managed program to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). The program is delivered to patients’ mobile devices and encourages users to do cardiovascular training, pelvic floor exercises, and physiotherapy. It also provides information about ED, sexual therapy, and stress management.

“The treatment of ED through physical activity and/or lifestyle changes is recommended in current European guidelines but is not well established in clinical practice,” according to the researchers.

App or Waitlist

The app, known as Kranus Edera, was created by Kranus Health. It is available by prescription in Germany and France.

To study the effectiveness of the app, investigators conducted a randomized controlled trial at the University Hospital Münster in Germany.

The study included 241 men who had scores of 21 or less on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5).

About half of the participants were randomly assigned to get the app. The rest were placed on a waiting list for the technology and served as a control group.

After 12 weeks, those who received the app reported significantly greater improvement on the IIEF-5, with a gain of 4.5 points vs a 0.2-point improvement for men in the control group (P < .0001).

Men who received the app also reported gains in measures of quality of life (20.5 vs −0.04) and patient activation (11.1 vs 0.64).

Nearly nine in 10 people who used the app did so several times per week, the researchers reported.

Sabine Kliesch, MD, with University Hospital Münster, led the study, which was presented at a poster session on April 8 at the EAU Congress in Paris.

Fully Reimbursed in Germany

In Germany, Kranus Edera has been included on a government list of digital health apps that are fully reimbursed by insurers, partly based on the results of the clinical trial. The cost there is €235 (about $255).

Patients typically notice improvements in 2-4 weeks, according to the company’s website. Patients who are taking a phosphodiesterase-5 enzyme inhibitor for ED may continue taking the medication, although they may no longer need it or they may be able to reduce the dose after treatment with the app, it says.

Kranus also has virtual treatments for incontinence in women and voiding dysfunction.

The app is meant to save doctors time by providing patients with detailed explanations and guidance within the app itself, said Laura Wiemer, MD, senior medical director of Kranus.

The app’s modules help reinforce guideline-recommended approaches to the treatment of ED “in playful ways with awards, motivational messages, and individual adjustments to help achieve better adherence and compliance of the patient,” Dr. Wiemer told this news organization.

Kranus plans to expand to the United States in 2024, she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Little blue pill meets a little blue light.

A digital application can improve erectile function, according to new research presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) Annual Congress on April 8, 2024.

Researchers developed a 12-week, self-managed program to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). The program is delivered to patients’ mobile devices and encourages users to do cardiovascular training, pelvic floor exercises, and physiotherapy. It also provides information about ED, sexual therapy, and stress management.

“The treatment of ED through physical activity and/or lifestyle changes is recommended in current European guidelines but is not well established in clinical practice,” according to the researchers.

App or Waitlist

The app, known as Kranus Edera, was created by Kranus Health. It is available by prescription in Germany and France.

To study the effectiveness of the app, investigators conducted a randomized controlled trial at the University Hospital Münster in Germany.

The study included 241 men who had scores of 21 or less on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5).

About half of the participants were randomly assigned to get the app. The rest were placed on a waiting list for the technology and served as a control group.

After 12 weeks, those who received the app reported significantly greater improvement on the IIEF-5, with a gain of 4.5 points vs a 0.2-point improvement for men in the control group (P < .0001).

Men who received the app also reported gains in measures of quality of life (20.5 vs −0.04) and patient activation (11.1 vs 0.64).

Nearly nine in 10 people who used the app did so several times per week, the researchers reported.

Sabine Kliesch, MD, with University Hospital Münster, led the study, which was presented at a poster session on April 8 at the EAU Congress in Paris.

Fully Reimbursed in Germany

In Germany, Kranus Edera has been included on a government list of digital health apps that are fully reimbursed by insurers, partly based on the results of the clinical trial. The cost there is €235 (about $255).

Patients typically notice improvements in 2-4 weeks, according to the company’s website. Patients who are taking a phosphodiesterase-5 enzyme inhibitor for ED may continue taking the medication, although they may no longer need it or they may be able to reduce the dose after treatment with the app, it says.

Kranus also has virtual treatments for incontinence in women and voiding dysfunction.

The app is meant to save doctors time by providing patients with detailed explanations and guidance within the app itself, said Laura Wiemer, MD, senior medical director of Kranus.

The app’s modules help reinforce guideline-recommended approaches to the treatment of ED “in playful ways with awards, motivational messages, and individual adjustments to help achieve better adherence and compliance of the patient,” Dr. Wiemer told this news organization.

Kranus plans to expand to the United States in 2024, she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A lightbulb moment hit as Lawrence David was chatting one day with an ecologist who studies the microbiomes and diets of large herbivores in the African savanna. David was envious. He’d been studying the human microbiome, and this ecologist had tons of animal statistics that were way more specific than what David had obtained from people.

“How on earth do you get all these dietary data?” David recalled asking. “Obviously, he didn’t ask the animals what they ate.”

All those specific statistics came from DNA sequencing of animal scat scooped up from the savanna. 

Indeed. 

Depending on when you read this, you may have the DNA of more than a dozen plant species, plus another three or four animal species, gurgling through your gut. That’s the straight poop taken straight from, well, poop.

David and colleagues are analyzing the DNA in human feces to better understand digestion and the links between diet and health, potentially paving the way to treatments for diet-linked diseases.

Diet, DNA, and Feces

Everything we eat (except vitamins, minerals, and salt) came from something that was living, and all living things have genomes. 

“A decent fraction of that DNA” goes undigested and is then excreted, said David, a PhD and associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 

“We are using DNA sequencing to reconstruct what people eat,” David said. “We try to see if there are patterns in what people eat and how we can measure them by DNA, or kind of genetic forensics.” Then they connect that data to health outcomes like obesity. 

A typical person’s excrement probably contains the DNA of 10-20 plant species and three or four types of animal DNA. “And that’s the average person. Some people may have more like 40 types at any given time,” David said. 

Studying DNA in human feces has potential applications in research and in clinical settings. For instance, it could help design personalized nutrition strategies for patients, something that’s already being tested. He hopes that DNA information will help “connect patterns in what people eat to their microbiomes.” 

One big advantage: Feces don’t lie. In reconstructing someone’s diet, people either forget what they ate, fudge the truth, or can’t be bothered to keep track. 

“Patients report the fruit they ate yesterday but not the M&Ms,” said Neil Stollman, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California. 

Some people can’t write it all down because they’re too old or too young — the very people at highest risk of nutrition-associated disease, said David. 

Fetching and Figuring Out Feces

It’s a lot of work to collect and analyze fecal matter, for ethical, legal, and logistical reasons. “And then there’s sort of an ick factor to this kind of work,” David said. 

To get samples, people place a plastic collection cup under the toilet seat to catch the stool. The person then swabs or scoops some of that into a tube, seals the top, and either brings it in or mails it to the lab. 

In the lab, David said, “if the DNA is still inside the plant cells, we crack the cells open using a variety of methods. We use what’s called ‘a stomacher,’ which is like two big paddles, and we load the poop [which is in a plastic bag] into it and then squash it — mash it up. We also sometimes load small particles of what is basically glass into it and then shake really hard — it is another way you can physically break open the plant cells. This can also be done with chemicals. It’s like a chemistry lab,” he said, noting that this process takes about half a day to do.

There is much more bacterial DNA in stool than there is food DNA, and even a little human DNA and sometimes fungi, said David. “The concentration of bacteria in stool is amongst the highest concentrations of bacteria on the planet,” he said, but his lab focuses on the plant DNA they find. 

They use a molecular process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that amplifies and selectively copies DNA from plants. (The scientists who invented this “ingenious” process won a Nobel Prize, David noted.) Like a COVID PCR test, the process only matches up for certain kinds of DNA and can be designed to be more specific or less specific. In David’s lab, they shoot for a middle ground of specificity, where the PCR process is targeting chloroplasts in plants. 

Once they’ve detected all the different sequences of food species, they need to find the DNA code, a time-consuming step. His colleague Briana Petrone compiled a reference database of specific sequences of DNA that correspond to different species of plants. This work took more than a year, said David, noting that only a handful of other labs around the country are sequencing DNA in feces, most of them looking at it in animals, not humans. 

There are 200,000 to 300,000 species of edible plants estimated to be on the planet, he said. “I think historically, humans have eaten about 7000 of them. We’re kind of like a walking repository of all this genetic material.” 

What Scientists Learn from Fecal DNA

Tracking DNA in digested food can provide valuable data to researchers — information that could have a major impact on nutritional guidance for people with obesity and digestive diseases and other gastrointestinal and nutrition-related issues. 

David and Petrone’s 2023 study analyzing DNA in stool samples, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), showed what — and roughly how much — people ate. 

They noticed that kids with obesity had a higher diversity of plants in them than kids without obesity. Sounds backward — wouldn’t a child who eats more plants be a healthier weight? “The more I dug into it, it turns out that foods that are more processed often tend to have more ingredients. So, a Big Mac and fries and a coffee have 19 different plant species,” said David. 

Going forward, he said, researchers may have to be “more specific about how we think about dietary diversity. Maybe not all plant species count toward health in the same way.” 

David’s work provides an innovative way to conduct nutrition research, said Jotham Suez, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 

“We need to have some means of tracking what people actually ate during a study, whether it’s an intervention where we provide them with the food or an observational study where we let people eat their habitual diet and track it themselves,” said Suez, who studies the gut microbiome. 

“Recall bias” makes food questionnaires and apps unreliable. And research suggests that some participants may underreport food intake, possibly because they don’t want to be judged or they misestimate how much they actually consumed. 

“There’s huge promise” with a tool like the one described in the PNAS study for making connections between diet and disease, Suez said. But access may be an issue for many researchers. He expects techniques to improve and costs to go down, but there will be challenges. “This method is also almost exclusively looking at plant DNA material, Suez added, “and our diets contain multiple components that are not plants.” 

And even if a person just eats an apple or a single cucumber, that food may be degraded somewhere else in the gut, and it may be digested differently in different people’s guts. “Metabolism, of course, can be different between people,” Suez said, so the amounts of data will vary. “In their study, the qualitative data is convincing. The quantitative is TBD [to be determined].” 

But he said it might be “a perfect tool” for scientists who want to study indigestible fiber, which is an important area of science, too. 

“I totally buy it as a potentially better way to do dietary analytics for disease associations,” said Stollman, an expert in fecal transplant and diverticulitis and a trustee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Stollman sees many patients with diverticular disease who could benefit. 

“One of the core questions in the diverticular world is, what causes diverticular disease, so we can ideally prevent it? For decades, the theory has been that a low fiber diet contributes to it,” said Stollman, but testing DNA in patients’ stools could help researchers explore the question in a new and potentially more nuanced and accurate way. Findings might allow scientists to learn, “Do people who eat X get polyps? Is this diet a risk factor for X, Y, or Z disease?” said Stollman. 

Future Clinical Applications

Brenda Davy, PhD, is a registered dietitian and professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech. She conducts research investigating the role of diet in the prevention and treatment of obesity and related conditions such as type 2 diabetes. She also develops dietary assessment methods. More than a decade ago, she developed one of the first rapid assessment tools for quantifying beverage intake — the Beverage Intake Questionnaire — an assessment that is still used today. 

“Dietary assessment is necessary in both research and clinical settings,” Davy said. “If a physician diagnoses a patient with a certain condition, information about the patient’s usual dietary habits can help him or her prescribe dietary changes that may help treat that condition.” 

Biospecimens, like fecal and urine samples, can be a safe, accurate way to collect that data, she said. Samples can be obtained easily and noninvasively “in a wide variety of populations such as children or older adults” and in clinical settings. 

Davy and her team use David’s technology in their work — in particular, a tool called FoodSeq that applies DNA metabarcoding to human stool to collect information about food taxa consumed. Their two labs are now collaborating on a project investigating how ultraprocessed foods might impact type 2 diabetes risk and cardiovascular health. 

There are many directions David’s lab would like to take their research, possibly partnering with epidemiologists on global studies that would help them expand their DNA database and better understand how, for example, climate change may be affecting diet diversity and to learn more about diet across different populations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A lightbulb moment hit as Lawrence David was chatting one day with an ecologist who studies the microbiomes and diets of large herbivores in the African savanna. David was envious. He’d been studying the human microbiome, and this ecologist had tons of animal statistics that were way more specific than what David had obtained from people.

“How on earth do you get all these dietary data?” David recalled asking. “Obviously, he didn’t ask the animals what they ate.”

All those specific statistics came from DNA sequencing of animal scat scooped up from the savanna. 

Indeed. 

Depending on when you read this, you may have the DNA of more than a dozen plant species, plus another three or four animal species, gurgling through your gut. That’s the straight poop taken straight from, well, poop.

David and colleagues are analyzing the DNA in human feces to better understand digestion and the links between diet and health, potentially paving the way to treatments for diet-linked diseases.

Diet, DNA, and Feces

Everything we eat (except vitamins, minerals, and salt) came from something that was living, and all living things have genomes. 

“A decent fraction of that DNA” goes undigested and is then excreted, said David, a PhD and associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 

“We are using DNA sequencing to reconstruct what people eat,” David said. “We try to see if there are patterns in what people eat and how we can measure them by DNA, or kind of genetic forensics.” Then they connect that data to health outcomes like obesity. 

A typical person’s excrement probably contains the DNA of 10-20 plant species and three or four types of animal DNA. “And that’s the average person. Some people may have more like 40 types at any given time,” David said. 

Studying DNA in human feces has potential applications in research and in clinical settings. For instance, it could help design personalized nutrition strategies for patients, something that’s already being tested. He hopes that DNA information will help “connect patterns in what people eat to their microbiomes.” 

One big advantage: Feces don’t lie. In reconstructing someone’s diet, people either forget what they ate, fudge the truth, or can’t be bothered to keep track. 

“Patients report the fruit they ate yesterday but not the M&Ms,” said Neil Stollman, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California. 

Some people can’t write it all down because they’re too old or too young — the very people at highest risk of nutrition-associated disease, said David. 

Fetching and Figuring Out Feces

It’s a lot of work to collect and analyze fecal matter, for ethical, legal, and logistical reasons. “And then there’s sort of an ick factor to this kind of work,” David said. 

To get samples, people place a plastic collection cup under the toilet seat to catch the stool. The person then swabs or scoops some of that into a tube, seals the top, and either brings it in or mails it to the lab. 

In the lab, David said, “if the DNA is still inside the plant cells, we crack the cells open using a variety of methods. We use what’s called ‘a stomacher,’ which is like two big paddles, and we load the poop [which is in a plastic bag] into it and then squash it — mash it up. We also sometimes load small particles of what is basically glass into it and then shake really hard — it is another way you can physically break open the plant cells. This can also be done with chemicals. It’s like a chemistry lab,” he said, noting that this process takes about half a day to do.

There is much more bacterial DNA in stool than there is food DNA, and even a little human DNA and sometimes fungi, said David. “The concentration of bacteria in stool is amongst the highest concentrations of bacteria on the planet,” he said, but his lab focuses on the plant DNA they find. 

They use a molecular process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that amplifies and selectively copies DNA from plants. (The scientists who invented this “ingenious” process won a Nobel Prize, David noted.) Like a COVID PCR test, the process only matches up for certain kinds of DNA and can be designed to be more specific or less specific. In David’s lab, they shoot for a middle ground of specificity, where the PCR process is targeting chloroplasts in plants. 

Once they’ve detected all the different sequences of food species, they need to find the DNA code, a time-consuming step. His colleague Briana Petrone compiled a reference database of specific sequences of DNA that correspond to different species of plants. This work took more than a year, said David, noting that only a handful of other labs around the country are sequencing DNA in feces, most of them looking at it in animals, not humans. 

There are 200,000 to 300,000 species of edible plants estimated to be on the planet, he said. “I think historically, humans have eaten about 7000 of them. We’re kind of like a walking repository of all this genetic material.” 

What Scientists Learn from Fecal DNA

Tracking DNA in digested food can provide valuable data to researchers — information that could have a major impact on nutritional guidance for people with obesity and digestive diseases and other gastrointestinal and nutrition-related issues. 

David and Petrone’s 2023 study analyzing DNA in stool samples, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), showed what — and roughly how much — people ate. 

They noticed that kids with obesity had a higher diversity of plants in them than kids without obesity. Sounds backward — wouldn’t a child who eats more plants be a healthier weight? “The more I dug into it, it turns out that foods that are more processed often tend to have more ingredients. So, a Big Mac and fries and a coffee have 19 different plant species,” said David. 

Going forward, he said, researchers may have to be “more specific about how we think about dietary diversity. Maybe not all plant species count toward health in the same way.” 

David’s work provides an innovative way to conduct nutrition research, said Jotham Suez, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 

“We need to have some means of tracking what people actually ate during a study, whether it’s an intervention where we provide them with the food or an observational study where we let people eat their habitual diet and track it themselves,” said Suez, who studies the gut microbiome. 

“Recall bias” makes food questionnaires and apps unreliable. And research suggests that some participants may underreport food intake, possibly because they don’t want to be judged or they misestimate how much they actually consumed. 

“There’s huge promise” with a tool like the one described in the PNAS study for making connections between diet and disease, Suez said. But access may be an issue for many researchers. He expects techniques to improve and costs to go down, but there will be challenges. “This method is also almost exclusively looking at plant DNA material, Suez added, “and our diets contain multiple components that are not plants.” 

And even if a person just eats an apple or a single cucumber, that food may be degraded somewhere else in the gut, and it may be digested differently in different people’s guts. “Metabolism, of course, can be different between people,” Suez said, so the amounts of data will vary. “In their study, the qualitative data is convincing. The quantitative is TBD [to be determined].” 

But he said it might be “a perfect tool” for scientists who want to study indigestible fiber, which is an important area of science, too. 

“I totally buy it as a potentially better way to do dietary analytics for disease associations,” said Stollman, an expert in fecal transplant and diverticulitis and a trustee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Stollman sees many patients with diverticular disease who could benefit. 

“One of the core questions in the diverticular world is, what causes diverticular disease, so we can ideally prevent it? For decades, the theory has been that a low fiber diet contributes to it,” said Stollman, but testing DNA in patients’ stools could help researchers explore the question in a new and potentially more nuanced and accurate way. Findings might allow scientists to learn, “Do people who eat X get polyps? Is this diet a risk factor for X, Y, or Z disease?” said Stollman. 

Future Clinical Applications

Brenda Davy, PhD, is a registered dietitian and professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech. She conducts research investigating the role of diet in the prevention and treatment of obesity and related conditions such as type 2 diabetes. She also develops dietary assessment methods. More than a decade ago, she developed one of the first rapid assessment tools for quantifying beverage intake — the Beverage Intake Questionnaire — an assessment that is still used today. 

“Dietary assessment is necessary in both research and clinical settings,” Davy said. “If a physician diagnoses a patient with a certain condition, information about the patient’s usual dietary habits can help him or her prescribe dietary changes that may help treat that condition.” 

Biospecimens, like fecal and urine samples, can be a safe, accurate way to collect that data, she said. Samples can be obtained easily and noninvasively “in a wide variety of populations such as children or older adults” and in clinical settings. 

Davy and her team use David’s technology in their work — in particular, a tool called FoodSeq that applies DNA metabarcoding to human stool to collect information about food taxa consumed. Their two labs are now collaborating on a project investigating how ultraprocessed foods might impact type 2 diabetes risk and cardiovascular health. 

There are many directions David’s lab would like to take their research, possibly partnering with epidemiologists on global studies that would help them expand their DNA database and better understand how, for example, climate change may be affecting diet diversity and to learn more about diet across different populations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A lightbulb moment hit as Lawrence David was chatting one day with an ecologist who studies the microbiomes and diets of large herbivores in the African savanna. David was envious. He’d been studying the human microbiome, and this ecologist had tons of animal statistics that were way more specific than what David had obtained from people.

“How on earth do you get all these dietary data?” David recalled asking. “Obviously, he didn’t ask the animals what they ate.”

All those specific statistics came from DNA sequencing of animal scat scooped up from the savanna. 

Indeed. 

Depending on when you read this, you may have the DNA of more than a dozen plant species, plus another three or four animal species, gurgling through your gut. That’s the straight poop taken straight from, well, poop.

David and colleagues are analyzing the DNA in human feces to better understand digestion and the links between diet and health, potentially paving the way to treatments for diet-linked diseases.

Diet, DNA, and Feces

Everything we eat (except vitamins, minerals, and salt) came from something that was living, and all living things have genomes. 

“A decent fraction of that DNA” goes undigested and is then excreted, said David, a PhD and associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 

“We are using DNA sequencing to reconstruct what people eat,” David said. “We try to see if there are patterns in what people eat and how we can measure them by DNA, or kind of genetic forensics.” Then they connect that data to health outcomes like obesity. 

A typical person’s excrement probably contains the DNA of 10-20 plant species and three or four types of animal DNA. “And that’s the average person. Some people may have more like 40 types at any given time,” David said. 

Studying DNA in human feces has potential applications in research and in clinical settings. For instance, it could help design personalized nutrition strategies for patients, something that’s already being tested. He hopes that DNA information will help “connect patterns in what people eat to their microbiomes.” 

One big advantage: Feces don’t lie. In reconstructing someone’s diet, people either forget what they ate, fudge the truth, or can’t be bothered to keep track. 

“Patients report the fruit they ate yesterday but not the M&Ms,” said Neil Stollman, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, California. 

Some people can’t write it all down because they’re too old or too young — the very people at highest risk of nutrition-associated disease, said David. 

Fetching and Figuring Out Feces

It’s a lot of work to collect and analyze fecal matter, for ethical, legal, and logistical reasons. “And then there’s sort of an ick factor to this kind of work,” David said. 

To get samples, people place a plastic collection cup under the toilet seat to catch the stool. The person then swabs or scoops some of that into a tube, seals the top, and either brings it in or mails it to the lab. 

In the lab, David said, “if the DNA is still inside the plant cells, we crack the cells open using a variety of methods. We use what’s called ‘a stomacher,’ which is like two big paddles, and we load the poop [which is in a plastic bag] into it and then squash it — mash it up. We also sometimes load small particles of what is basically glass into it and then shake really hard — it is another way you can physically break open the plant cells. This can also be done with chemicals. It’s like a chemistry lab,” he said, noting that this process takes about half a day to do.

There is much more bacterial DNA in stool than there is food DNA, and even a little human DNA and sometimes fungi, said David. “The concentration of bacteria in stool is amongst the highest concentrations of bacteria on the planet,” he said, but his lab focuses on the plant DNA they find. 

They use a molecular process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that amplifies and selectively copies DNA from plants. (The scientists who invented this “ingenious” process won a Nobel Prize, David noted.) Like a COVID PCR test, the process only matches up for certain kinds of DNA and can be designed to be more specific or less specific. In David’s lab, they shoot for a middle ground of specificity, where the PCR process is targeting chloroplasts in plants. 

Once they’ve detected all the different sequences of food species, they need to find the DNA code, a time-consuming step. His colleague Briana Petrone compiled a reference database of specific sequences of DNA that correspond to different species of plants. This work took more than a year, said David, noting that only a handful of other labs around the country are sequencing DNA in feces, most of them looking at it in animals, not humans. 

There are 200,000 to 300,000 species of edible plants estimated to be on the planet, he said. “I think historically, humans have eaten about 7000 of them. We’re kind of like a walking repository of all this genetic material.” 

What Scientists Learn from Fecal DNA

Tracking DNA in digested food can provide valuable data to researchers — information that could have a major impact on nutritional guidance for people with obesity and digestive diseases and other gastrointestinal and nutrition-related issues. 

David and Petrone’s 2023 study analyzing DNA in stool samples, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), showed what — and roughly how much — people ate. 

They noticed that kids with obesity had a higher diversity of plants in them than kids without obesity. Sounds backward — wouldn’t a child who eats more plants be a healthier weight? “The more I dug into it, it turns out that foods that are more processed often tend to have more ingredients. So, a Big Mac and fries and a coffee have 19 different plant species,” said David. 

Going forward, he said, researchers may have to be “more specific about how we think about dietary diversity. Maybe not all plant species count toward health in the same way.” 

David’s work provides an innovative way to conduct nutrition research, said Jotham Suez, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of molecular microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 

“We need to have some means of tracking what people actually ate during a study, whether it’s an intervention where we provide them with the food or an observational study where we let people eat their habitual diet and track it themselves,” said Suez, who studies the gut microbiome. 

“Recall bias” makes food questionnaires and apps unreliable. And research suggests that some participants may underreport food intake, possibly because they don’t want to be judged or they misestimate how much they actually consumed. 

“There’s huge promise” with a tool like the one described in the PNAS study for making connections between diet and disease, Suez said. But access may be an issue for many researchers. He expects techniques to improve and costs to go down, but there will be challenges. “This method is also almost exclusively looking at plant DNA material, Suez added, “and our diets contain multiple components that are not plants.” 

And even if a person just eats an apple or a single cucumber, that food may be degraded somewhere else in the gut, and it may be digested differently in different people’s guts. “Metabolism, of course, can be different between people,” Suez said, so the amounts of data will vary. “In their study, the qualitative data is convincing. The quantitative is TBD [to be determined].” 

But he said it might be “a perfect tool” for scientists who want to study indigestible fiber, which is an important area of science, too. 

“I totally buy it as a potentially better way to do dietary analytics for disease associations,” said Stollman, an expert in fecal transplant and diverticulitis and a trustee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Stollman sees many patients with diverticular disease who could benefit. 

“One of the core questions in the diverticular world is, what causes diverticular disease, so we can ideally prevent it? For decades, the theory has been that a low fiber diet contributes to it,” said Stollman, but testing DNA in patients’ stools could help researchers explore the question in a new and potentially more nuanced and accurate way. Findings might allow scientists to learn, “Do people who eat X get polyps? Is this diet a risk factor for X, Y, or Z disease?” said Stollman. 

Future Clinical Applications

Brenda Davy, PhD, is a registered dietitian and professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech. She conducts research investigating the role of diet in the prevention and treatment of obesity and related conditions such as type 2 diabetes. She also develops dietary assessment methods. More than a decade ago, she developed one of the first rapid assessment tools for quantifying beverage intake — the Beverage Intake Questionnaire — an assessment that is still used today. 

“Dietary assessment is necessary in both research and clinical settings,” Davy said. “If a physician diagnoses a patient with a certain condition, information about the patient’s usual dietary habits can help him or her prescribe dietary changes that may help treat that condition.” 

Biospecimens, like fecal and urine samples, can be a safe, accurate way to collect that data, she said. Samples can be obtained easily and noninvasively “in a wide variety of populations such as children or older adults” and in clinical settings. 

Davy and her team use David’s technology in their work — in particular, a tool called FoodSeq that applies DNA metabarcoding to human stool to collect information about food taxa consumed. Their two labs are now collaborating on a project investigating how ultraprocessed foods might impact type 2 diabetes risk and cardiovascular health. 

There are many directions David’s lab would like to take their research, possibly partnering with epidemiologists on global studies that would help them expand their DNA database and better understand how, for example, climate change may be affecting diet diversity and to learn more about diet across different populations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with excess weight or obesity tend to experience higher levels of pain intensity than those with a normal weight, highlighting the importance of addressing obesity as part of pain management strategies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity may cause pathophysiological changes, such as increased load on joints and systemic inflammation, potentially affecting the sensation of pain. Recent studies suggest that obesity may change pain perception and worsen existing painful conditions.
• To examine the association between overweight or obesity and self-perceived pain intensities, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies that included 31,210 adults older than 18 years and from diverse international cohorts.
• The participants were categorized by body mass index (BMI) as being normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥ 30). A BMI ≥ 25 was considered excess weight.
• Pain intensity was assessed by self-report using the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and Numerical Pain Rating Scale, with the lowest value indicating “no pain” and the highest value representing “pain as bad as it could be.”
• Researchers compared pain intensity between these patient BMI groups: Normal weight vs overweight plus obesity, normal weight vs overweight, normal weight vs obesity, and overweight vs obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people with normal weight, people with excess weight (overweight or obesity; standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.15; P = .0052) or with obesity (SMD, −0.22; P = .0008) reported higher pain intensities, with a small effect size.
• The comparison of self-report pain in people who had normal weight and overweight did not show any statistically significant difference.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings encourage the treatment of obesity and the control of body mass index (weight loss) as key complementary interventions for pain management,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Miguel M. Garcia, Department of Basic Health Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Unidad Asociada de I+D+i al Instituto de Química Médica CSIC-URJC, Alcorcón, Spain. It was published online in Frontiers in Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include individuals who were underweight, potentially overlooking the associations between physical pain and malnutrition. BMI may misclassify individuals with high muscularity, as it doesn’t accurately reflect adiposity and cannot distinguish between two people with similar BMIs and different body compositions. Furthermore, the study did not consider gender-based differences while evaluating pain outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no specific funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with excess weight or obesity tend to experience higher levels of pain intensity than those with a normal weight, highlighting the importance of addressing obesity as part of pain management strategies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity may cause pathophysiological changes, such as increased load on joints and systemic inflammation, potentially affecting the sensation of pain. Recent studies suggest that obesity may change pain perception and worsen existing painful conditions.
• To examine the association between overweight or obesity and self-perceived pain intensities, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies that included 31,210 adults older than 18 years and from diverse international cohorts.
• The participants were categorized by body mass index (BMI) as being normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥ 30). A BMI ≥ 25 was considered excess weight.
• Pain intensity was assessed by self-report using the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and Numerical Pain Rating Scale, with the lowest value indicating “no pain” and the highest value representing “pain as bad as it could be.”
• Researchers compared pain intensity between these patient BMI groups: Normal weight vs overweight plus obesity, normal weight vs overweight, normal weight vs obesity, and overweight vs obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people with normal weight, people with excess weight (overweight or obesity; standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.15; P = .0052) or with obesity (SMD, −0.22; P = .0008) reported higher pain intensities, with a small effect size.
• The comparison of self-report pain in people who had normal weight and overweight did not show any statistically significant difference.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings encourage the treatment of obesity and the control of body mass index (weight loss) as key complementary interventions for pain management,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Miguel M. Garcia, Department of Basic Health Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Unidad Asociada de I+D+i al Instituto de Química Médica CSIC-URJC, Alcorcón, Spain. It was published online in Frontiers in Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include individuals who were underweight, potentially overlooking the associations between physical pain and malnutrition. BMI may misclassify individuals with high muscularity, as it doesn’t accurately reflect adiposity and cannot distinguish between two people with similar BMIs and different body compositions. Furthermore, the study did not consider gender-based differences while evaluating pain outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no specific funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with excess weight or obesity tend to experience higher levels of pain intensity than those with a normal weight, highlighting the importance of addressing obesity as part of pain management strategies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity may cause pathophysiological changes, such as increased load on joints and systemic inflammation, potentially affecting the sensation of pain. Recent studies suggest that obesity may change pain perception and worsen existing painful conditions.
• To examine the association between overweight or obesity and self-perceived pain intensities, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies that included 31,210 adults older than 18 years and from diverse international cohorts.
• The participants were categorized by body mass index (BMI) as being normal weight (18.5-24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), and obese (≥ 30). A BMI ≥ 25 was considered excess weight.
• Pain intensity was assessed by self-report using the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and Numerical Pain Rating Scale, with the lowest value indicating “no pain” and the highest value representing “pain as bad as it could be.”
• Researchers compared pain intensity between these patient BMI groups: Normal weight vs overweight plus obesity, normal weight vs overweight, normal weight vs obesity, and overweight vs obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people with normal weight, people with excess weight (overweight or obesity; standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.15; P = .0052) or with obesity (SMD, −0.22; P = .0008) reported higher pain intensities, with a small effect size.
• The comparison of self-report pain in people who had normal weight and overweight did not show any statistically significant difference.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings encourage the treatment of obesity and the control of body mass index (weight loss) as key complementary interventions for pain management,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Miguel M. Garcia, Department of Basic Health Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Unidad Asociada de I+D+i al Instituto de Química Médica CSIC-URJC, Alcorcón, Spain. It was published online in Frontiers in Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis did not include individuals who were underweight, potentially overlooking the associations between physical pain and malnutrition. BMI may misclassify individuals with high muscularity, as it doesn’t accurately reflect adiposity and cannot distinguish between two people with similar BMIs and different body compositions. Furthermore, the study did not consider gender-based differences while evaluating pain outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no specific funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of researchers urged US regulators to revoke the approval of a test marketed for predicting risk for opioid addiction and said government health plans should not pay for the product. 

The focus of the request is AdvertD (SOLVD Health), which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in December as the first test to use DNA to evaluate if people have an elevated risk for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sample obtained through a cheek swab is meant to help guide decisions about opioid prescriptions for patients not previously treated with these drugs, such as someone undergoing a planned surgery, the FDA said. 

But Michael T. Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher for Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and 30 other physicians and researchers sent an April 4 letter to the Food and Drug Administration calling on the government to reconsider. 

Dr. Abrams and fellow signers of the letters, including longtime opioid watchdog Andrew Kolodny, MD, of Brandeis University, said the algorithm used in creating AvertD “fell into known pitfalls of genetic prediction that give the appearance of predicting genetic risk, without being a true measure of genetic risk.” 

“The harmful consequences of an invalid genetic test for OUD are clear. Patients who test negative, and their clinicians, may have a false sense of security about use of opioids,” the letter states. 

The letter adds that false-positive test results may result in harmful consequences, with clinicians refraining from prescribing needed opioids, a problem that may be magnified in minority populations. 

Among the signers of the letter is Alexander Hatoum, PhD, of Washington University, who conducted an independent evaluation of AdvertD, which he and his colleagues published in 2021 in Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 

Dr. Hatoum said many patients may not fully understand the limit of genetic testing in predicting conditions like risk for OUD, where many factors are at play. The availability of a test may lend the impression that a single DNA trait makes the difference, as happens with conditions like Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis, he said. 

“But it’s just not reality for most diseases,” Dr. Hatoum told this news organization. 

The FDA declined to comment on the letter and said its approval of the test was “another step forward” in efforts to prevent new cases of OUD. 

In 2021, a little more than three quarters of people who died by overdose in the United States involved opioids, or more than 80,000 people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This figure includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl. 

While deaths from overdoses with prescription opioids peaked in 2017 at 17,029 people, that figure has decreased steadily. Meanwhile, synthetic opioids other than methadone — primarily fentanyl — were the main driver of drug overdose deaths with a nearly 7.5-fold increase from 2015 to 2021. 

The FDA agency said it had “a reasonable assurance of AvertD’s safety and effectiveness, taking into consideration available alternatives, patients’ perspectives, the public health need and the ability to address uncertainty through the collection of post-market data.” 

Slow Rollout

In a separate letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Abrams, Dr. Kolodny, Dr. Hatoum, and the other signers repeated their arguments against the use of AdvertD and asked that the government not use federal funds to pay for the test. 

SOLVD is not yet selling AdvertD in the United States, and it has not yet set a price for the product. The Carlsbad, California-based company told this news organization in an email exchange that it is working with both Medicare and private insurers on questions of future coverage. 

AvertD correctly identified an elevated risk for OUD in about 82.8% of cases, equating to a false-negative rate of 18.2% of patients, the FDA said in its summary of on the data supporting the application. This measure is known as sensitivity, meaning it shows how often an individual has the condition addressed in the test. 

Meanwhile, the false positive rate was 20.8%, the FDA said. 

SOLVD published similar study results in 2021. 

The company failed to impress the FDA’s Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel, which in October 2022, said the probable risks of the test likely outweighed its benefits. 

Then, in November 2022, the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a public workshop meeting  to consider the challenges and possibilities in developing tools to predict the risk of developing OUD. At that meeting, Keri Donaldson, MD, MSCE, the chief executive officer of SOLVD, said the company planned to conduct a controlled rollout of AdvertD on FDA approval. 

Dr. Donaldson said a “defined set” of clinicians would first access the test, allowing the company to understand how results would be used in clinical practice.

“Once a test gets into practice, you have to be very purposeful and thoughtful about how it’s used,” he said.

The FDA approved the test in December 2023, saying it had worked with the company on modifications to its test. It also said that the advisory committee’s feedback helped in the evaluation and ultimate approval of AdvertD. 

Even beyond the debate about the predictive ability of genetic tests for OUD are larger questions that physicians need time to ask patients in assessing their potential risk for addiction when prescribing narcotic painkillers, said Maya Hambright, MD, a physician in New York’s Hudson Valley who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the overdose crisis. 

Genetics are just one of many factors at play in causing people to become addicted to opioids, Dr. Hambright said. 

Physicians must also consider the lasting effects of emotional and physical trauma experienced at any age, but particularly in childhood, as well as what kind of social support a patient has in facing the illness or injury that may require opioids for pain, she said. 

“There is a time and place for narcotic medications to be prescribed appropriately, which means we have to do our due diligence,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “Regardless of the strides we make in research and development, we still must connect and communicate safely and effectively and compassionately with our patients.” 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.