If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The former owner of a South Florida nursing school at the heart of a federal investigation into a multistate fraud scheme awarding at least 7,600 fake diplomas will have to serve nearly 2 years and repay millions.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale recently sentenced Johanah Napoleon, former president of the Palm Beach School of Nursing, to 21 months in prison, according to the Miami Herald . The judge also ordered Ms. Napoleon to pay about $3.5 million. She already paid $2.6 million of it, the Herald reports.

The sentence is “indicative of the seriousness of this crime,” shared Willa Fuller, BSN, RN, executive director of the Florida Nurses Association. “Hopefully, this decision will deter potential perpetrators in the future,” Ms. Fuller said in an email.

Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 along with two owners of nursing schools in Maryland and Virginia who worked with her. All pled guilty to selling fake degrees for $6,000-$18,000. The Florida Board of Nursing had previously shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 as a result of its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

A tip related to the Maryland case led to federal charges in January against 25 owners, operators, and employees of the Palm Beach School of Nursing and two other Florida nursing schools for selling thousands of fake nursing degrees. Those who were charged operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.

Five of those 25 defendants will be sentenced on July 27 in a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale after pleading guilty in May to wire fraud conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. They each face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Purchasers of the fake associate or bachelor’s degrees received transcripts showing that they completed coursework. Some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Napoleon’s attorney, Joel DeFabio, said in an interview that he requested a lower sentence than the 4 years recommended in sentencing guidelines because Ms. Napoleon pled guilty quickly and cooperated with the federal investigation.

Mr. DeFabio said that Ms. Napoleon will appear as the government’s witness in a trial in November against Gail Russ, who is one defendant, along with 13 others in the case involving the Palm Beach School of Nursing.

Meanwhile, state nursing boards have been trying to locate nurses who received the fake degrees. In March, the New York nursing board told 903 nurses to either surrender their licenses or prove they had the appropriate education. The board estimated that another 2,300 licensees from the Florida schools had pending applications.

Some nurses who received fake diplomas are pushing back. Attorneys for nurses in Georgia and Pennsylvania claim that their clients were either victims or in some cases, have legitimate credentials.

“The quality of nursing education as well as protection of applicants from these harmful schemes is essential to maintaining the strict standards of the nursing profession,” Ms. Fuller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The former owner of a South Florida nursing school at the heart of a federal investigation into a multistate fraud scheme awarding at least 7,600 fake diplomas will have to serve nearly 2 years and repay millions.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale recently sentenced Johanah Napoleon, former president of the Palm Beach School of Nursing, to 21 months in prison, according to the Miami Herald . The judge also ordered Ms. Napoleon to pay about $3.5 million. She already paid $2.6 million of it, the Herald reports.

The sentence is “indicative of the seriousness of this crime,” shared Willa Fuller, BSN, RN, executive director of the Florida Nurses Association. “Hopefully, this decision will deter potential perpetrators in the future,” Ms. Fuller said in an email.

Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 along with two owners of nursing schools in Maryland and Virginia who worked with her. All pled guilty to selling fake degrees for $6,000-$18,000. The Florida Board of Nursing had previously shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 as a result of its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

A tip related to the Maryland case led to federal charges in January against 25 owners, operators, and employees of the Palm Beach School of Nursing and two other Florida nursing schools for selling thousands of fake nursing degrees. Those who were charged operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.

Five of those 25 defendants will be sentenced on July 27 in a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale after pleading guilty in May to wire fraud conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. They each face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Purchasers of the fake associate or bachelor’s degrees received transcripts showing that they completed coursework. Some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Napoleon’s attorney, Joel DeFabio, said in an interview that he requested a lower sentence than the 4 years recommended in sentencing guidelines because Ms. Napoleon pled guilty quickly and cooperated with the federal investigation.

Mr. DeFabio said that Ms. Napoleon will appear as the government’s witness in a trial in November against Gail Russ, who is one defendant, along with 13 others in the case involving the Palm Beach School of Nursing.

Meanwhile, state nursing boards have been trying to locate nurses who received the fake degrees. In March, the New York nursing board told 903 nurses to either surrender their licenses or prove they had the appropriate education. The board estimated that another 2,300 licensees from the Florida schools had pending applications.

Some nurses who received fake diplomas are pushing back. Attorneys for nurses in Georgia and Pennsylvania claim that their clients were either victims or in some cases, have legitimate credentials.

“The quality of nursing education as well as protection of applicants from these harmful schemes is essential to maintaining the strict standards of the nursing profession,” Ms. Fuller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The former owner of a South Florida nursing school at the heart of a federal investigation into a multistate fraud scheme awarding at least 7,600 fake diplomas will have to serve nearly 2 years and repay millions.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale recently sentenced Johanah Napoleon, former president of the Palm Beach School of Nursing, to 21 months in prison, according to the Miami Herald . The judge also ordered Ms. Napoleon to pay about $3.5 million. She already paid $2.6 million of it, the Herald reports.

The sentence is “indicative of the seriousness of this crime,” shared Willa Fuller, BSN, RN, executive director of the Florida Nurses Association. “Hopefully, this decision will deter potential perpetrators in the future,” Ms. Fuller said in an email.

Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 along with two owners of nursing schools in Maryland and Virginia who worked with her. All pled guilty to selling fake degrees for $6,000-$18,000. The Florida Board of Nursing had previously shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 as a result of its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

A tip related to the Maryland case led to federal charges in January against 25 owners, operators, and employees of the Palm Beach School of Nursing and two other Florida nursing schools for selling thousands of fake nursing degrees. Those who were charged operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.

Five of those 25 defendants will be sentenced on July 27 in a federal district court in Fort Lauderdale after pleading guilty in May to wire fraud conspiracy, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. They each face up to 20 years in federal prison.

Purchasers of the fake associate or bachelor’s degrees received transcripts showing that they completed coursework. Some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses in hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country, according to The New York Times.

Ms. Napoleon’s attorney, Joel DeFabio, said in an interview that he requested a lower sentence than the 4 years recommended in sentencing guidelines because Ms. Napoleon pled guilty quickly and cooperated with the federal investigation.

Mr. DeFabio said that Ms. Napoleon will appear as the government’s witness in a trial in November against Gail Russ, who is one defendant, along with 13 others in the case involving the Palm Beach School of Nursing.

Meanwhile, state nursing boards have been trying to locate nurses who received the fake degrees. In March, the New York nursing board told 903 nurses to either surrender their licenses or prove they had the appropriate education. The board estimated that another 2,300 licensees from the Florida schools had pending applications.

Some nurses who received fake diplomas are pushing back. Attorneys for nurses in Georgia and Pennsylvania claim that their clients were either victims or in some cases, have legitimate credentials.

“The quality of nursing education as well as protection of applicants from these harmful schemes is essential to maintaining the strict standards of the nursing profession,” Ms. Fuller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a boy in Alabama.

It’s the first time that a baby has been born to a woman with a transplanted uterus outside of a clinical trial. Officials from University of Alabama–Birmingham Hospital, where the 2-year process took place, said in a statement on July 24 that the birth sets its uterus transplant program on track to perhaps become covered under insurance plans.

The process of uterus transplant, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy involves 50 medical providers and is open to women who have uterine factor infertility (UFI). The condition may affect up to 5% of reproductive-age women worldwide. Women with UFI cannot carry a pregnancy to term because they were either born without a uterus, had it removed via hysterectomy, or have a uterus that does not function properly.

The woman, whom the hospital identified as Mallory, moved with her family to the Birmingham area to enter the transplant program, which is one of four programs operating in the United States. Mallory learned when she was 17 years old that she was born without a uterus because of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Her first child, a daughter, was born after her sister carried the pregnancy as a surrogate.

Mallory received her uterus from a deceased donor. Her son was born in May.

“As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus,” the transplant program’s website states. “After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take antirejection medications.”

“There are all different ways to grow your family if you have uterine factor infertility, but this [uterus transplantation] is what I feel like I knew that I was supposed to do,” Mallory said in a statement. “I mean, just hearing the cry at first was just, you know, mind blowing.”

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

A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a boy in Alabama.

It’s the first time that a baby has been born to a woman with a transplanted uterus outside of a clinical trial. Officials from University of Alabama–Birmingham Hospital, where the 2-year process took place, said in a statement on July 24 that the birth sets its uterus transplant program on track to perhaps become covered under insurance plans.

The process of uterus transplant, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy involves 50 medical providers and is open to women who have uterine factor infertility (UFI). The condition may affect up to 5% of reproductive-age women worldwide. Women with UFI cannot carry a pregnancy to term because they were either born without a uterus, had it removed via hysterectomy, or have a uterus that does not function properly.

The woman, whom the hospital identified as Mallory, moved with her family to the Birmingham area to enter the transplant program, which is one of four programs operating in the United States. Mallory learned when she was 17 years old that she was born without a uterus because of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Her first child, a daughter, was born after her sister carried the pregnancy as a surrogate.

Mallory received her uterus from a deceased donor. Her son was born in May.

“As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus,” the transplant program’s website states. “After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take antirejection medications.”

“There are all different ways to grow your family if you have uterine factor infertility, but this [uterus transplantation] is what I feel like I knew that I was supposed to do,” Mallory said in a statement. “I mean, just hearing the cry at first was just, you know, mind blowing.”

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

A woman who was born without a uterus has given birth to a boy in Alabama.

It’s the first time that a baby has been born to a woman with a transplanted uterus outside of a clinical trial. Officials from University of Alabama–Birmingham Hospital, where the 2-year process took place, said in a statement on July 24 that the birth sets its uterus transplant program on track to perhaps become covered under insurance plans.

The process of uterus transplant, in vitro fertilization, and pregnancy involves 50 medical providers and is open to women who have uterine factor infertility (UFI). The condition may affect up to 5% of reproductive-age women worldwide. Women with UFI cannot carry a pregnancy to term because they were either born without a uterus, had it removed via hysterectomy, or have a uterus that does not function properly.

The woman, whom the hospital identified as Mallory, moved with her family to the Birmingham area to enter the transplant program, which is one of four programs operating in the United States. Mallory learned when she was 17 years old that she was born without a uterus because of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Her first child, a daughter, was born after her sister carried the pregnancy as a surrogate.

Mallory received her uterus from a deceased donor. Her son was born in May.

“As with other types of organ transplants, the woman must take immunosuppressive medications to prevent the body from rejecting the transplanted uterus,” the transplant program’s website states. “After the baby is born and if the woman does not want more children, the transplanted uterus is removed with a hysterectomy procedure, and the woman no longer needs to take antirejection medications.”

“There are all different ways to grow your family if you have uterine factor infertility, but this [uterus transplantation] is what I feel like I knew that I was supposed to do,” Mallory said in a statement. “I mean, just hearing the cry at first was just, you know, mind blowing.”

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

TOPLINE:

The use of oral cancer drugs on Medicare Part D formularies requiring prior authorization has increased over the past decade, with the biggest rise occurring for nonspecialty brand drugs.

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers used Medicare Part D formulary files to identify insurance companies’ use of prior authorization and quantity limits for each drug-dose-formulary combination for oral cancer drugs.
• Drugs were identified using the 2021 Oncology Care Model drug list.
• Researchers categorized drugs as specialty – when monthly costs were higher than $600 in 2010-2016 and $670 in 2017-2020 – or nonspecialty and brand or generic.
• For each year in the study period, which spanned 2010-2020, researchers estimated the enrollment-weighted proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations subject to administrative burdens. 
• Medicare Part D beneficiaries increased from 28,030,290 in 2010 to 47,337,020 in 2020.

TAKEAWAYS:

• In 2010, 333 formularies covered 62 oral cancer drugs – 26 specialty brands, zero specialty generics, 28 nonspecialty brands, and eight nonspecialty generics – compared with 548 formularies and 249 drugs in 2020 – 139 specialty brands, nine specialty generics, 86 nonspecialty brands, and 15 nonspecialty generics. 
• Unique drug-dose-formulary prescribing combinations increased from 19,004 to 122,173 between 2010 and 2020; the proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations requiring prior authorization also increased in that time.
• For specialty brand drugs, the proportion requiring prior authorization increased from 72.8% to 95.4%; that proportion increased nearly fivefold, from 15.9% to 78.2%, for nonspecialty brand drugs, and eightfold, from 1% to 8%, for nonspecialty generic drugs.
• The proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations for oral oncology drugs requiring quantity limits for specialty brand drugs doubled over the study period – from 31.4% to 62.5%. That proportion increased from 32.7% to 77.8% for specialty generic drugs between 2016 and 2020; and between 2010 and 2020, from 11.8% to 47.3% for nonspecialty brand drugs and from 9.7% to 18.8% for nonspecialty generic drugs.

IN PRACTICE:  

“Utilization management may be appropriate for some oncology drugs, such as those approved with provisional evidence of efficacy,” researchers wrote. “It is less clear why prior authorization is required for highly effective, first-line drugs such as generic imatinib.”

SOURCE:  

The analysis, led by Michael Anne Kyle, PhD, RN, was published online July 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study focused on Medicare and oral oncology drugs, and future work could expand the scope.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant. Coauthors received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund.

Authors reported affiliations with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, West Health, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, National Cancer Institute, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of oral cancer drugs on Medicare Part D formularies requiring prior authorization has increased over the past decade, with the biggest rise occurring for nonspecialty brand drugs.

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers used Medicare Part D formulary files to identify insurance companies’ use of prior authorization and quantity limits for each drug-dose-formulary combination for oral cancer drugs.
• Drugs were identified using the 2021 Oncology Care Model drug list.
• Researchers categorized drugs as specialty – when monthly costs were higher than $600 in 2010-2016 and $670 in 2017-2020 – or nonspecialty and brand or generic.
• For each year in the study period, which spanned 2010-2020, researchers estimated the enrollment-weighted proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations subject to administrative burdens. 
• Medicare Part D beneficiaries increased from 28,030,290 in 2010 to 47,337,020 in 2020.

TAKEAWAYS:

• In 2010, 333 formularies covered 62 oral cancer drugs – 26 specialty brands, zero specialty generics, 28 nonspecialty brands, and eight nonspecialty generics – compared with 548 formularies and 249 drugs in 2020 – 139 specialty brands, nine specialty generics, 86 nonspecialty brands, and 15 nonspecialty generics. 
• Unique drug-dose-formulary prescribing combinations increased from 19,004 to 122,173 between 2010 and 2020; the proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations requiring prior authorization also increased in that time.
• For specialty brand drugs, the proportion requiring prior authorization increased from 72.8% to 95.4%; that proportion increased nearly fivefold, from 15.9% to 78.2%, for nonspecialty brand drugs, and eightfold, from 1% to 8%, for nonspecialty generic drugs.
• The proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations for oral oncology drugs requiring quantity limits for specialty brand drugs doubled over the study period – from 31.4% to 62.5%. That proportion increased from 32.7% to 77.8% for specialty generic drugs between 2016 and 2020; and between 2010 and 2020, from 11.8% to 47.3% for nonspecialty brand drugs and from 9.7% to 18.8% for nonspecialty generic drugs.

IN PRACTICE:  

“Utilization management may be appropriate for some oncology drugs, such as those approved with provisional evidence of efficacy,” researchers wrote. “It is less clear why prior authorization is required for highly effective, first-line drugs such as generic imatinib.”

SOURCE:  

The analysis, led by Michael Anne Kyle, PhD, RN, was published online July 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study focused on Medicare and oral oncology drugs, and future work could expand the scope.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant. Coauthors received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund.

Authors reported affiliations with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, West Health, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, National Cancer Institute, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of oral cancer drugs on Medicare Part D formularies requiring prior authorization has increased over the past decade, with the biggest rise occurring for nonspecialty brand drugs.

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers used Medicare Part D formulary files to identify insurance companies’ use of prior authorization and quantity limits for each drug-dose-formulary combination for oral cancer drugs.
• Drugs were identified using the 2021 Oncology Care Model drug list.
• Researchers categorized drugs as specialty – when monthly costs were higher than $600 in 2010-2016 and $670 in 2017-2020 – or nonspecialty and brand or generic.
• For each year in the study period, which spanned 2010-2020, researchers estimated the enrollment-weighted proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations subject to administrative burdens. 
• Medicare Part D beneficiaries increased from 28,030,290 in 2010 to 47,337,020 in 2020.

TAKEAWAYS:

• In 2010, 333 formularies covered 62 oral cancer drugs – 26 specialty brands, zero specialty generics, 28 nonspecialty brands, and eight nonspecialty generics – compared with 548 formularies and 249 drugs in 2020 – 139 specialty brands, nine specialty generics, 86 nonspecialty brands, and 15 nonspecialty generics. 
• Unique drug-dose-formulary prescribing combinations increased from 19,004 to 122,173 between 2010 and 2020; the proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations requiring prior authorization also increased in that time.
• For specialty brand drugs, the proportion requiring prior authorization increased from 72.8% to 95.4%; that proportion increased nearly fivefold, from 15.9% to 78.2%, for nonspecialty brand drugs, and eightfold, from 1% to 8%, for nonspecialty generic drugs.
• The proportion of drug-dose-formulary combinations for oral oncology drugs requiring quantity limits for specialty brand drugs doubled over the study period – from 31.4% to 62.5%. That proportion increased from 32.7% to 77.8% for specialty generic drugs between 2016 and 2020; and between 2010 and 2020, from 11.8% to 47.3% for nonspecialty brand drugs and from 9.7% to 18.8% for nonspecialty generic drugs.

IN PRACTICE:  

“Utilization management may be appropriate for some oncology drugs, such as those approved with provisional evidence of efficacy,” researchers wrote. “It is less clear why prior authorization is required for highly effective, first-line drugs such as generic imatinib.”

SOURCE:  

The analysis, led by Michael Anne Kyle, PhD, RN, was published online July 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study focused on Medicare and oral oncology drugs, and future work could expand the scope.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by a National Cancer Institute grant. Coauthors received funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund.

Authors reported affiliations with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, West Health, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, National Cancer Institute, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published conclusions from the first interim analysis of overall survival in the IMpower010 trial of adjuvant atezolizumab for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have met with some pushback on Twitter.

Here’s why.

At a median follow-up of 45.3 months, 127 of 507 patients (25%) in the atezolizumab group and 124 of 498 (24.9%) in the best supportive care group had died.

Among all 882 patients with stage II-IIIA disease, the investigators found no significant improvement in overall survival with atezolizumab, compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.24).

The researchers, however, concluded that the trial showed a “positive” trend favoring atezolizumab in PD-L1 subgroup analyses.

In a subgroup of 476 patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%, patients who received atezolizumab exhibited a nonsignificant 29% improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.03). The best results were in the subgroup of 229 patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% – these patients exhibited a 57% improvement in overall survival with atezolizumab (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78). Those with PD-L1 expression 1%-49%, however, demonstrated no improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.95).

In a Twitter post, H. Jack West, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., urged caution in interpreting the study data: “Let’s be clear: OS results are neg for OS benefit in PD-L1+ NSCLC. If we’re going to rely on smaller subgroups to highlight HR of 0.43 for those w/high PD-L1, we should also note HR for OS was 0.95 (i.e., NO trend for OS benefit) for those w/PD-L1 1-49%.”

The tweet continued: “With favorable results driven entirely by a 30% subgroup, it’s understandable that Roche would want to also promote benefit in broader population. But we shouldn’t perpetuate misinformation that there’s a benefit for broad group of PD-L1+, even if the effort is to market it this way.”

In an interview, Dr. West elaborated on his tweet, explaining that the way the overall survival data are presented in the paper is “disingenuous and misleading.”

The paper clearly highlights that the drug was significantly beneficial for the narrower population who had high PD-L1 expression. But the hazard ratio of 0.95 for the entire population is like “where’s Waldo in this paper. It’s almost impossible to find, but it should have been prominently included in the figure of results by subgroup,” Dr. West said.

“This is something that should have been objected to by the oncologists on the paper and by the reviews and the editors,” Dr. West said.

Two other oncologists agreed.

Joel Grossman, MD, tweeted: “Bingo. I’m not sure we need cancer ground shots or lengthy treatises on common sense, but I am damn sure we need honest interpretation of clinical trial data as Jack shows here. We can’t tolerate over-broad borderline deception that leads to poor and wasteful decision-making.”

Jeff Ryckman, MD, tweeted: “Problem is, this is a routine FDA #CarteBlanche approval regardless of no benefit in PD-L1 1%-49%. This will be Rx’d to everyone.”
 

Regulatory ‘gamesmanship’

The results of the IMpower010 analysis were published online in Annals of Oncology. The interim overall survival data were first reported last year at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

IMpower010 was a global, randomized, open-label trial of 1,280 patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) through stage IIIA NSCLC for whom tissue samples were available for PD-L1 analysis.

All patients received four cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin plus either pemetrexed, gemcitabine, docetaxel, or vinorelbine and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 16 cycles of atezolizumab or best supportive care.

Interim disease-free survival (DFS) results from IMpower010, presented at ASCO 2021, showed that patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% experienced a 34% improvement in DFS, equating to a 21% improvement across all randomly assigned patients with stage II-IIIA disease.

On the basis of DFS findings, in 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted atezolizumab a new indication – the adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC whose tumors have PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%.

Looking at the big picture, Dr. West noted that regulatory approval for a drug allows for a certain amount of “gamesmanship.”

“It behooves a company to work with FDA to get approval for a broader population than it should be, relative to where the true clinical benefit lies,” he explained.

To this end, Dr. West noted that progression-free survival is increasingly being used as a primary endpoint in trials, but long-term data indicate that this surrogate endpoint is often not tethered to an overall survival benefit. However, drugs are often being approved now on the basis of a progression-free survival benefit.

“Unfortunately, that’s the system we live in today, with a bias toward, ‘If it could plausibly be interpreted as beneficial, we’ll wave it through for the broadest population possible,” Dr. West said.

The IMpower010 study and Annals of Oncology manuscript were funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Several authors have disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. West has a regular column on Medscape.com and reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published conclusions from the first interim analysis of overall survival in the IMpower010 trial of adjuvant atezolizumab for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have met with some pushback on Twitter.

Here’s why.

At a median follow-up of 45.3 months, 127 of 507 patients (25%) in the atezolizumab group and 124 of 498 (24.9%) in the best supportive care group had died.

Among all 882 patients with stage II-IIIA disease, the investigators found no significant improvement in overall survival with atezolizumab, compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.24).

The researchers, however, concluded that the trial showed a “positive” trend favoring atezolizumab in PD-L1 subgroup analyses.

In a subgroup of 476 patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%, patients who received atezolizumab exhibited a nonsignificant 29% improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.03). The best results were in the subgroup of 229 patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% – these patients exhibited a 57% improvement in overall survival with atezolizumab (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78). Those with PD-L1 expression 1%-49%, however, demonstrated no improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.95).

In a Twitter post, H. Jack West, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., urged caution in interpreting the study data: “Let’s be clear: OS results are neg for OS benefit in PD-L1+ NSCLC. If we’re going to rely on smaller subgroups to highlight HR of 0.43 for those w/high PD-L1, we should also note HR for OS was 0.95 (i.e., NO trend for OS benefit) for those w/PD-L1 1-49%.”

The tweet continued: “With favorable results driven entirely by a 30% subgroup, it’s understandable that Roche would want to also promote benefit in broader population. But we shouldn’t perpetuate misinformation that there’s a benefit for broad group of PD-L1+, even if the effort is to market it this way.”

In an interview, Dr. West elaborated on his tweet, explaining that the way the overall survival data are presented in the paper is “disingenuous and misleading.”

The paper clearly highlights that the drug was significantly beneficial for the narrower population who had high PD-L1 expression. But the hazard ratio of 0.95 for the entire population is like “where’s Waldo in this paper. It’s almost impossible to find, but it should have been prominently included in the figure of results by subgroup,” Dr. West said.

“This is something that should have been objected to by the oncologists on the paper and by the reviews and the editors,” Dr. West said.

Two other oncologists agreed.

Joel Grossman, MD, tweeted: “Bingo. I’m not sure we need cancer ground shots or lengthy treatises on common sense, but I am damn sure we need honest interpretation of clinical trial data as Jack shows here. We can’t tolerate over-broad borderline deception that leads to poor and wasteful decision-making.”

Jeff Ryckman, MD, tweeted: “Problem is, this is a routine FDA #CarteBlanche approval regardless of no benefit in PD-L1 1%-49%. This will be Rx’d to everyone.”
 

Regulatory ‘gamesmanship’

The results of the IMpower010 analysis were published online in Annals of Oncology. The interim overall survival data were first reported last year at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

IMpower010 was a global, randomized, open-label trial of 1,280 patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) through stage IIIA NSCLC for whom tissue samples were available for PD-L1 analysis.

All patients received four cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin plus either pemetrexed, gemcitabine, docetaxel, or vinorelbine and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 16 cycles of atezolizumab or best supportive care.

Interim disease-free survival (DFS) results from IMpower010, presented at ASCO 2021, showed that patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% experienced a 34% improvement in DFS, equating to a 21% improvement across all randomly assigned patients with stage II-IIIA disease.

On the basis of DFS findings, in 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted atezolizumab a new indication – the adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC whose tumors have PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%.

Looking at the big picture, Dr. West noted that regulatory approval for a drug allows for a certain amount of “gamesmanship.”

“It behooves a company to work with FDA to get approval for a broader population than it should be, relative to where the true clinical benefit lies,” he explained.

To this end, Dr. West noted that progression-free survival is increasingly being used as a primary endpoint in trials, but long-term data indicate that this surrogate endpoint is often not tethered to an overall survival benefit. However, drugs are often being approved now on the basis of a progression-free survival benefit.

“Unfortunately, that’s the system we live in today, with a bias toward, ‘If it could plausibly be interpreted as beneficial, we’ll wave it through for the broadest population possible,” Dr. West said.

The IMpower010 study and Annals of Oncology manuscript were funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Several authors have disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. West has a regular column on Medscape.com and reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published conclusions from the first interim analysis of overall survival in the IMpower010 trial of adjuvant atezolizumab for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have met with some pushback on Twitter.

Here’s why.

At a median follow-up of 45.3 months, 127 of 507 patients (25%) in the atezolizumab group and 124 of 498 (24.9%) in the best supportive care group had died.

Among all 882 patients with stage II-IIIA disease, the investigators found no significant improvement in overall survival with atezolizumab, compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.24).

The researchers, however, concluded that the trial showed a “positive” trend favoring atezolizumab in PD-L1 subgroup analyses.

In a subgroup of 476 patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%, patients who received atezolizumab exhibited a nonsignificant 29% improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.03). The best results were in the subgroup of 229 patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% – these patients exhibited a 57% improvement in overall survival with atezolizumab (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78). Those with PD-L1 expression 1%-49%, however, demonstrated no improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.95).

In a Twitter post, H. Jack West, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., urged caution in interpreting the study data: “Let’s be clear: OS results are neg for OS benefit in PD-L1+ NSCLC. If we’re going to rely on smaller subgroups to highlight HR of 0.43 for those w/high PD-L1, we should also note HR for OS was 0.95 (i.e., NO trend for OS benefit) for those w/PD-L1 1-49%.”

The tweet continued: “With favorable results driven entirely by a 30% subgroup, it’s understandable that Roche would want to also promote benefit in broader population. But we shouldn’t perpetuate misinformation that there’s a benefit for broad group of PD-L1+, even if the effort is to market it this way.”

In an interview, Dr. West elaborated on his tweet, explaining that the way the overall survival data are presented in the paper is “disingenuous and misleading.”

The paper clearly highlights that the drug was significantly beneficial for the narrower population who had high PD-L1 expression. But the hazard ratio of 0.95 for the entire population is like “where’s Waldo in this paper. It’s almost impossible to find, but it should have been prominently included in the figure of results by subgroup,” Dr. West said.

“This is something that should have been objected to by the oncologists on the paper and by the reviews and the editors,” Dr. West said.

Two other oncologists agreed.

Joel Grossman, MD, tweeted: “Bingo. I’m not sure we need cancer ground shots or lengthy treatises on common sense, but I am damn sure we need honest interpretation of clinical trial data as Jack shows here. We can’t tolerate over-broad borderline deception that leads to poor and wasteful decision-making.”

Jeff Ryckman, MD, tweeted: “Problem is, this is a routine FDA #CarteBlanche approval regardless of no benefit in PD-L1 1%-49%. This will be Rx’d to everyone.”
 

Regulatory ‘gamesmanship’

The results of the IMpower010 analysis were published online in Annals of Oncology. The interim overall survival data were first reported last year at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

IMpower010 was a global, randomized, open-label trial of 1,280 patients with completely resected stage IB (tumors ≥ 4 cm) through stage IIIA NSCLC for whom tissue samples were available for PD-L1 analysis.

All patients received four cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin plus either pemetrexed, gemcitabine, docetaxel, or vinorelbine and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 16 cycles of atezolizumab or best supportive care.

Interim disease-free survival (DFS) results from IMpower010, presented at ASCO 2021, showed that patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% experienced a 34% improvement in DFS, equating to a 21% improvement across all randomly assigned patients with stage II-IIIA disease.

On the basis of DFS findings, in 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted atezolizumab a new indication – the adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC whose tumors have PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%.

Looking at the big picture, Dr. West noted that regulatory approval for a drug allows for a certain amount of “gamesmanship.”

“It behooves a company to work with FDA to get approval for a broader population than it should be, relative to where the true clinical benefit lies,” he explained.

To this end, Dr. West noted that progression-free survival is increasingly being used as a primary endpoint in trials, but long-term data indicate that this surrogate endpoint is often not tethered to an overall survival benefit. However, drugs are often being approved now on the basis of a progression-free survival benefit.

“Unfortunately, that’s the system we live in today, with a bias toward, ‘If it could plausibly be interpreted as beneficial, we’ll wave it through for the broadest population possible,” Dr. West said.

The IMpower010 study and Annals of Oncology manuscript were funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Several authors have disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. West has a regular column on Medscape.com and reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.