User login
No cognitive benefit from meditation, learning a language?
The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.
“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Contradictory findings
For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.
The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.
Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.
The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.
“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”
This study was the longest randomized controlled trial in older adults to investigate the effects of non-native language learning on cognition, Dr. Marchant said.
“It may be that language-learning may buffer against age-related cognitive decline but does not boost cognition in high-functioning individuals,” Dr. Marchant said. “While language learning may not improve cognition, we do not want to discard the other possibility without first examining it.”
Dr. Marchant plans to follow participants for years to come to study that very question.
More to learn
The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.
Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.
“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”
Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.
“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”
The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.
“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Contradictory findings
For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.
The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.
Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.
The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.
“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”
This study was the longest randomized controlled trial in older adults to investigate the effects of non-native language learning on cognition, Dr. Marchant said.
“It may be that language-learning may buffer against age-related cognitive decline but does not boost cognition in high-functioning individuals,” Dr. Marchant said. “While language learning may not improve cognition, we do not want to discard the other possibility without first examining it.”
Dr. Marchant plans to follow participants for years to come to study that very question.
More to learn
The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.
Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.
“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”
Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.
“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”
The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.
“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Contradictory findings
For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.
The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.
Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.
The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.
“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”
This study was the longest randomized controlled trial in older adults to investigate the effects of non-native language learning on cognition, Dr. Marchant said.
“It may be that language-learning may buffer against age-related cognitive decline but does not boost cognition in high-functioning individuals,” Dr. Marchant said. “While language learning may not improve cognition, we do not want to discard the other possibility without first examining it.”
Dr. Marchant plans to follow participants for years to come to study that very question.
More to learn
The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.
Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.
“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”
Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.
“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”
The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA Network Open
‘Treatment holiday’ in prostate cancer with tailored dosing
and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.
The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Although clinical trials have demonstrated that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.
Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received 177Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.
In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 177Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.
The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of 177Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with 177Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and 177Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.
The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on 177Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.
Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.
Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.
Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.
Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.
“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with 177Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.
Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.
The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Although clinical trials have demonstrated that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.
Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received 177Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.
In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 177Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.
The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of 177Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with 177Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and 177Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.
The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on 177Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.
Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.
Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.
Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.
Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.
“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with 177Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.
Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.
The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.
The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Although clinical trials have demonstrated that 177Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.
Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received 177Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.
In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 177Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.
The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of 177Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with 177Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and 177Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.
The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on 177Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.
Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.
Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.
Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.
Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.
“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with 177Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.
Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SNMMI 2023
Early MS treatment tied to a major reduction in severe disability
a new study suggests.
Patients who received early treatment had a 45% lower risk of reaching a disability score of 3 and a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS compared with those who began treatment 18 months or more after symptoms presented.
Those with a score of 3 can still walk unassisted but have moderate disability in one of eight areas, such as motor function, vision or thinking skills, or mild disability in three or four areas.
“With a very early treatment, within 6 months from the first symptoms and even before the MS diagnosis, we are now able to decrease long-term disability. This means the earlier the better – time is brain,” lead author Alvaro Cobo-Calvo, MD, PhD, clinical neurologists and researcher with the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia in Barcelona and the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Measuring disability
The observational, retrospective study included people aged 50 years or younger who received MS treatment within 6 months of their first clinical demyelinating event (n = 194), 6-16 months later (n = 192), or more than 16 months after the initial symptoms presented (n = 194).
The investigators noted that this cohort is one of the few that is considered “deeply phenotyped,” meaning it is followed prospectively over time with strict quality controls and systematic data collection methods.
MRIs were done within 3-5 months of the first symptoms, again at 12 months after the first event, and every 5 years over a median 11.2-year follow-up.
Disability levels were measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale, with scores ranging from 0-10 and higher scores indicating more disability.
Patients who received treatment within 6 months of first symptoms were 45% less likely to have a disability score of 3 by the end of the study than did those who received treatment more than 16 months after that first event (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).
The earliest-treatment group also had a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS than did people in the latest-treatment group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85).
Better disease stability
The researchers also found that earlier treatment was associated with a 53% better chance of disease stability 1 year after initial treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80).
The early-treatment group also had a lower disability progression rate and lower severe disability in a self-reported test, compared with those who were treated later.
The investigators also found that patients who received early treatment were at lower risk for disability, even those with a higher baseline radiologic burden.
Current guidelines recommend early treatment of MS, but it is unclear whether disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) should be prescribed after the first MS symptoms or after a definitive MS diagnosis.
Earlier studies often evaluated treatment efficacy after MS diagnosis. This study began tracking efficacy when therapy began after the first symptoms. In some cases, that was before a diagnosis was given.
“It is important to be cautious when starting treatment and we need to know if the patient will evolve to MS or if the patient is diagnosed with MS based on current McDonald criteria.
“In our study, 70% of patients had MS at the time of the first symptoms according to McDonald 201, but the remainder started treatment without an ‘official’ diagnosis but with an event highly suggestive of MS,” Dr. Cobo-Calvo said.
He added that very early treatment after first symptoms is key to preserving neurologic functionality.
Controversy remains
Adding MRI results as a clinical variable is a novel approach, but the MRI risk score used in the study is a new tool that has not yet been validated, the authors of an accompanying editorial noted.
“The results of this study show that in order to achieve a balance between compared groups, matching on MRI has little to add to good-quality balancing on patients’ clinical and demographic features,” wrote Erin Longbrake, MD, PhD, of the department of neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the Neuroimmunology Centre, department of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the CORe unit, department of medicine, University of Melbourne.
Despite growing evidence pointing to improved outcomes from administering DMTs soon after diagnosis, the timing and sequence of therapy remains an area of controversy, they added.
“While these uncertain diagnostic scenarios may tempt neurologists to ‘wait and see,’ the data presented here remind us that these patients remain at risk of accumulating disability,” the authors wrote. “Neurologists must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that diagnosis is made promptly, that patients are followed up effectively and that effective treatments are used liberally.”
The study was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Cobo-Calvo has received a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Longbrake has consulted for Genentech and NGM Bio and received research support from Biogen & Genentech. Dr. Kalincik has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck, and has received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests.
Patients who received early treatment had a 45% lower risk of reaching a disability score of 3 and a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS compared with those who began treatment 18 months or more after symptoms presented.
Those with a score of 3 can still walk unassisted but have moderate disability in one of eight areas, such as motor function, vision or thinking skills, or mild disability in three or four areas.
“With a very early treatment, within 6 months from the first symptoms and even before the MS diagnosis, we are now able to decrease long-term disability. This means the earlier the better – time is brain,” lead author Alvaro Cobo-Calvo, MD, PhD, clinical neurologists and researcher with the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia in Barcelona and the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Measuring disability
The observational, retrospective study included people aged 50 years or younger who received MS treatment within 6 months of their first clinical demyelinating event (n = 194), 6-16 months later (n = 192), or more than 16 months after the initial symptoms presented (n = 194).
The investigators noted that this cohort is one of the few that is considered “deeply phenotyped,” meaning it is followed prospectively over time with strict quality controls and systematic data collection methods.
MRIs were done within 3-5 months of the first symptoms, again at 12 months after the first event, and every 5 years over a median 11.2-year follow-up.
Disability levels were measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale, with scores ranging from 0-10 and higher scores indicating more disability.
Patients who received treatment within 6 months of first symptoms were 45% less likely to have a disability score of 3 by the end of the study than did those who received treatment more than 16 months after that first event (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).
The earliest-treatment group also had a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS than did people in the latest-treatment group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85).
Better disease stability
The researchers also found that earlier treatment was associated with a 53% better chance of disease stability 1 year after initial treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80).
The early-treatment group also had a lower disability progression rate and lower severe disability in a self-reported test, compared with those who were treated later.
The investigators also found that patients who received early treatment were at lower risk for disability, even those with a higher baseline radiologic burden.
Current guidelines recommend early treatment of MS, but it is unclear whether disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) should be prescribed after the first MS symptoms or after a definitive MS diagnosis.
Earlier studies often evaluated treatment efficacy after MS diagnosis. This study began tracking efficacy when therapy began after the first symptoms. In some cases, that was before a diagnosis was given.
“It is important to be cautious when starting treatment and we need to know if the patient will evolve to MS or if the patient is diagnosed with MS based on current McDonald criteria.
“In our study, 70% of patients had MS at the time of the first symptoms according to McDonald 201, but the remainder started treatment without an ‘official’ diagnosis but with an event highly suggestive of MS,” Dr. Cobo-Calvo said.
He added that very early treatment after first symptoms is key to preserving neurologic functionality.
Controversy remains
Adding MRI results as a clinical variable is a novel approach, but the MRI risk score used in the study is a new tool that has not yet been validated, the authors of an accompanying editorial noted.
“The results of this study show that in order to achieve a balance between compared groups, matching on MRI has little to add to good-quality balancing on patients’ clinical and demographic features,” wrote Erin Longbrake, MD, PhD, of the department of neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the Neuroimmunology Centre, department of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the CORe unit, department of medicine, University of Melbourne.
Despite growing evidence pointing to improved outcomes from administering DMTs soon after diagnosis, the timing and sequence of therapy remains an area of controversy, they added.
“While these uncertain diagnostic scenarios may tempt neurologists to ‘wait and see,’ the data presented here remind us that these patients remain at risk of accumulating disability,” the authors wrote. “Neurologists must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that diagnosis is made promptly, that patients are followed up effectively and that effective treatments are used liberally.”
The study was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Cobo-Calvo has received a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Longbrake has consulted for Genentech and NGM Bio and received research support from Biogen & Genentech. Dr. Kalincik has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck, and has received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests.
Patients who received early treatment had a 45% lower risk of reaching a disability score of 3 and a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS compared with those who began treatment 18 months or more after symptoms presented.
Those with a score of 3 can still walk unassisted but have moderate disability in one of eight areas, such as motor function, vision or thinking skills, or mild disability in three or four areas.
“With a very early treatment, within 6 months from the first symptoms and even before the MS diagnosis, we are now able to decrease long-term disability. This means the earlier the better – time is brain,” lead author Alvaro Cobo-Calvo, MD, PhD, clinical neurologists and researcher with the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia in Barcelona and the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Measuring disability
The observational, retrospective study included people aged 50 years or younger who received MS treatment within 6 months of their first clinical demyelinating event (n = 194), 6-16 months later (n = 192), or more than 16 months after the initial symptoms presented (n = 194).
The investigators noted that this cohort is one of the few that is considered “deeply phenotyped,” meaning it is followed prospectively over time with strict quality controls and systematic data collection methods.
MRIs were done within 3-5 months of the first symptoms, again at 12 months after the first event, and every 5 years over a median 11.2-year follow-up.
Disability levels were measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale, with scores ranging from 0-10 and higher scores indicating more disability.
Patients who received treatment within 6 months of first symptoms were 45% less likely to have a disability score of 3 by the end of the study than did those who received treatment more than 16 months after that first event (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).
The earliest-treatment group also had a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS than did people in the latest-treatment group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85).
Better disease stability
The researchers also found that earlier treatment was associated with a 53% better chance of disease stability 1 year after initial treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80).
The early-treatment group also had a lower disability progression rate and lower severe disability in a self-reported test, compared with those who were treated later.
The investigators also found that patients who received early treatment were at lower risk for disability, even those with a higher baseline radiologic burden.
Current guidelines recommend early treatment of MS, but it is unclear whether disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) should be prescribed after the first MS symptoms or after a definitive MS diagnosis.
Earlier studies often evaluated treatment efficacy after MS diagnosis. This study began tracking efficacy when therapy began after the first symptoms. In some cases, that was before a diagnosis was given.
“It is important to be cautious when starting treatment and we need to know if the patient will evolve to MS or if the patient is diagnosed with MS based on current McDonald criteria.
“In our study, 70% of patients had MS at the time of the first symptoms according to McDonald 201, but the remainder started treatment without an ‘official’ diagnosis but with an event highly suggestive of MS,” Dr. Cobo-Calvo said.
He added that very early treatment after first symptoms is key to preserving neurologic functionality.
Controversy remains
Adding MRI results as a clinical variable is a novel approach, but the MRI risk score used in the study is a new tool that has not yet been validated, the authors of an accompanying editorial noted.
“The results of this study show that in order to achieve a balance between compared groups, matching on MRI has little to add to good-quality balancing on patients’ clinical and demographic features,” wrote Erin Longbrake, MD, PhD, of the department of neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the Neuroimmunology Centre, department of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the CORe unit, department of medicine, University of Melbourne.
Despite growing evidence pointing to improved outcomes from administering DMTs soon after diagnosis, the timing and sequence of therapy remains an area of controversy, they added.
“While these uncertain diagnostic scenarios may tempt neurologists to ‘wait and see,’ the data presented here remind us that these patients remain at risk of accumulating disability,” the authors wrote. “Neurologists must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that diagnosis is made promptly, that patients are followed up effectively and that effective treatments are used liberally.”
The study was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Cobo-Calvo has received a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Longbrake has consulted for Genentech and NGM Bio and received research support from Biogen & Genentech. Dr. Kalincik has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck, and has received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Vegetarian diets can improve high-risk cardiovascular disease
, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.
“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.
Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.
“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets
For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.
The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.
The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).
The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).
Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.
Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.
Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.
The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.
Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.
The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.
“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet
Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.
In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.
“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
Not all vegetarian diets are healthy
Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.
The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.
Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.
Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.
Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.
They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”
Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.
“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.
Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.
“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets
For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.
The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.
The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).
The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).
Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.
Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.
Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.
The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.
Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.
The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.
“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet
Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.
In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.
“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
Not all vegetarian diets are healthy
Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.
The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.
Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.
Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.
Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.
They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”
Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.
“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.
Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.
“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets
For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.
The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.
The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).
The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).
Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.
Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.
Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.
The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.
Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.
The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.
“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet
Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.
In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.
“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
Not all vegetarian diets are healthy
Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.
The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.
Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.
Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.
Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.
They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”
Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Partial immunization leaves children and communities at risk, study finds
TOPLINE
A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.
METHODOLOGY
- Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
- 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
- Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.
TAKEAWAY
- 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
- 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
- The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
- Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.
IN PRACTICE
The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”
SOURCE
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.
LIMITATIONS
Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.
DISCLOSURES
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE
A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.
METHODOLOGY
- Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
- 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
- Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.
TAKEAWAY
- 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
- 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
- The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
- Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.
IN PRACTICE
The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”
SOURCE
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.
LIMITATIONS
Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.
DISCLOSURES
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE
A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.
METHODOLOGY
- Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
- 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
- Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.
TAKEAWAY
- 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
- 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
- The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
- Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.
IN PRACTICE
The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”
SOURCE
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.
LIMITATIONS
Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.
DISCLOSURES
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early or delayed AFib ablation after heart failure hospitalization?
TOPLINE:
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) hospitalized for worsening heart failure (HF), catheter (cath) ablation within 90 days of admission, compared with other times, is associated with reduced risk for all-cause mortality and HF-related mortality.
METHODOLOGY:
Cath ablation has become technically safer for patients with both AFib and HF, but the best timing for the ablation procedure after HF hospitalization has been unclear.
The study included 2,786 patients with HF who underwent cath ablation for AFib at 128 centers in the nationwide Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure, were hospitalized with worsening HF, and survived at least 90 days after discharge.
The population included 103 individuals who underwent cath ablation within 90 days after admission; the remaining 2,683 participants served as the control group.
The researchers also looked at all-cause mortality 90 days after admission for HF in analysis of 83 early-ablation cases vs. 83 propensity-matched controls.
TAKEAWAY:
The early–cath ablation group was younger, predominantly male, had less history of prior HF hospitalizations, and greater incidence of paroxysmal AF, compared with the control group.
All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early–cath ablation group than in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.60; P < .001) over a median of 4.1 years.
Risk reductions were similarly significant for secondary endpoints, including cardiovascular (CV) mortality and HF mortality.
In the matched cohort analysis (83 in both groups) all-cause mortality was significantly reduced for those in the early–cath ablation group, compared with the matched controls (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.88; P = .014), with similarly significant risk reductions for CV mortality and HF mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
the report states. Early catheter ablation, as early as during the hospitalization for HF, “might be a way to stabilize HF and solve the problems associated with long hospitalization periods and polypharmacy.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Kazuo Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues. It was published online July 19, 2023 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The early-ablation cohort was much smaller than the control group, and the analysis could not adjust for any variation in institutional characteristics, such as location and available equipment. Other unmeasured potential confounders include duration of AFib and patient lifestyle characteristics and success or failure of ablation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Johnson & Johnson, the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, and Ministry of Health and Labor. Dr. Sakamoto reports no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) hospitalized for worsening heart failure (HF), catheter (cath) ablation within 90 days of admission, compared with other times, is associated with reduced risk for all-cause mortality and HF-related mortality.
METHODOLOGY:
Cath ablation has become technically safer for patients with both AFib and HF, but the best timing for the ablation procedure after HF hospitalization has been unclear.
The study included 2,786 patients with HF who underwent cath ablation for AFib at 128 centers in the nationwide Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure, were hospitalized with worsening HF, and survived at least 90 days after discharge.
The population included 103 individuals who underwent cath ablation within 90 days after admission; the remaining 2,683 participants served as the control group.
The researchers also looked at all-cause mortality 90 days after admission for HF in analysis of 83 early-ablation cases vs. 83 propensity-matched controls.
TAKEAWAY:
The early–cath ablation group was younger, predominantly male, had less history of prior HF hospitalizations, and greater incidence of paroxysmal AF, compared with the control group.
All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early–cath ablation group than in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.60; P < .001) over a median of 4.1 years.
Risk reductions were similarly significant for secondary endpoints, including cardiovascular (CV) mortality and HF mortality.
In the matched cohort analysis (83 in both groups) all-cause mortality was significantly reduced for those in the early–cath ablation group, compared with the matched controls (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.88; P = .014), with similarly significant risk reductions for CV mortality and HF mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
the report states. Early catheter ablation, as early as during the hospitalization for HF, “might be a way to stabilize HF and solve the problems associated with long hospitalization periods and polypharmacy.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Kazuo Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues. It was published online July 19, 2023 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The early-ablation cohort was much smaller than the control group, and the analysis could not adjust for any variation in institutional characteristics, such as location and available equipment. Other unmeasured potential confounders include duration of AFib and patient lifestyle characteristics and success or failure of ablation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Johnson & Johnson, the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, and Ministry of Health and Labor. Dr. Sakamoto reports no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) hospitalized for worsening heart failure (HF), catheter (cath) ablation within 90 days of admission, compared with other times, is associated with reduced risk for all-cause mortality and HF-related mortality.
METHODOLOGY:
Cath ablation has become technically safer for patients with both AFib and HF, but the best timing for the ablation procedure after HF hospitalization has been unclear.
The study included 2,786 patients with HF who underwent cath ablation for AFib at 128 centers in the nationwide Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure, were hospitalized with worsening HF, and survived at least 90 days after discharge.
The population included 103 individuals who underwent cath ablation within 90 days after admission; the remaining 2,683 participants served as the control group.
The researchers also looked at all-cause mortality 90 days after admission for HF in analysis of 83 early-ablation cases vs. 83 propensity-matched controls.
TAKEAWAY:
The early–cath ablation group was younger, predominantly male, had less history of prior HF hospitalizations, and greater incidence of paroxysmal AF, compared with the control group.
All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early–cath ablation group than in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.60; P < .001) over a median of 4.1 years.
Risk reductions were similarly significant for secondary endpoints, including cardiovascular (CV) mortality and HF mortality.
In the matched cohort analysis (83 in both groups) all-cause mortality was significantly reduced for those in the early–cath ablation group, compared with the matched controls (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.88; P = .014), with similarly significant risk reductions for CV mortality and HF mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
the report states. Early catheter ablation, as early as during the hospitalization for HF, “might be a way to stabilize HF and solve the problems associated with long hospitalization periods and polypharmacy.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Kazuo Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues. It was published online July 19, 2023 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The early-ablation cohort was much smaller than the control group, and the analysis could not adjust for any variation in institutional characteristics, such as location and available equipment. Other unmeasured potential confounders include duration of AFib and patient lifestyle characteristics and success or failure of ablation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Johnson & Johnson, the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, and Ministry of Health and Labor. Dr. Sakamoto reports no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JACC: CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Could GLP-1 receptor agonists ease knee osteoarthritis pain, slow progression?
Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?
Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.
Three recently published studies investigated this:
- The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
- A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
- A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.
The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.
This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
The big picture, as seen by two experts
The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.
Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.
Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.
“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.
Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”
Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.
Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.
Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.
“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.
They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.
He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
Three published studies
LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA
Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.
All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.
Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.
From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.
“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.
“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”
The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.
“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.
Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.
The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.
Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”
Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.
In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA
Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.
They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.
The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m2, and a mean A1c of 7.3%.
“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.
The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).
Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.
“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.
They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”
They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.
Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m2 and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA
Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.
In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.
The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).
They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.
“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”
Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
Two trials near completion, one is upcoming
Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004
“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.
The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.
The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA
Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.
Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m2 and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.
The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.
Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?
Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.
Three recently published studies investigated this:
- The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
- A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
- A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.
The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.
This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
The big picture, as seen by two experts
The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.
Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.
Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.
“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.
Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”
Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.
Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.
Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.
“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.
They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.
He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
Three published studies
LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA
Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.
All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.
Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.
From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.
“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.
“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”
The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.
“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.
Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.
The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.
Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”
Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.
In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA
Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.
They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.
The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m2, and a mean A1c of 7.3%.
“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.
The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).
Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.
“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.
They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”
They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.
Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m2 and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA
Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.
In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.
The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).
They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.
“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”
Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
Two trials near completion, one is upcoming
Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004
“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.
The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.
The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA
Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.
Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m2 and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.
The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.
Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?
Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.
Three recently published studies investigated this:
- The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
- A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
- A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.
The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.
This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
The big picture, as seen by two experts
The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.
Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.
Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.
“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.
Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”
Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.
Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.
Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.
“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.
They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.
He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
Three published studies
LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA
Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.
All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.
Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.
From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.
“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.
“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”
The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.
“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.
Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.
The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.
Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”
Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.
In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA
Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.
They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.
The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m2, and a mean A1c of 7.3%.
“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.
The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).
Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.
“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.
They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”
They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.
Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m2 and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA
Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.
In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.
The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).
They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.
“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”
Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
Two trials near completion, one is upcoming
Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004
“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.
The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.
The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA
Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.
Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m2 and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.
The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.
Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Low HIV levels linked to ‘almost zero’ risk of sexual transmission
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – from the World Health Organization.
The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.
The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).
“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”
The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.
People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.
The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.
“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – from the World Health Organization.
The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.
The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).
“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”
The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.
People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.
The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.
“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – from the World Health Organization.
The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.
The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).
“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”
The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.
People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.
The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.
“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
AT IAS 2023
Time to end direct-to-consumer ads, says physician
One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.
These television ads are quite formulaic:
We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.
The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”
Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.
Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?
Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?
Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”
Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.
An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.
Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.
How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?
It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.
Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.
The time to end DTC advertising has come!
Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.
These television ads are quite formulaic:
We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.
The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”
Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.
Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?
Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?
Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”
Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.
An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.
Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.
How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?
It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.
Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.
The time to end DTC advertising has come!
Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.
These television ads are quite formulaic:
We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.
The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”
Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.
Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?
Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?
Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”
Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.
An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.
Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.
How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?
It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.
Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.
The time to end DTC advertising has come!
Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SGLT2 inhibitors linked with fewer gout flares in diabetes
TOPLINE:
compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
- The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
- Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
- Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
- Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.
TAKEAWAY:
- Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
- For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
- The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
- SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.
SOURCE:
The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
- The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
- Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
- Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
- Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.
TAKEAWAY:
- Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
- For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
- The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
- SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.
SOURCE:
The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
- The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
- Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
- Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
- Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.
TAKEAWAY:
- Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
- For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
- The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
- SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.
SOURCE:
The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE