TOPLINE

Patients who received zuranolone 50 mg/d demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who received placebo, with a rapid onset of effect.

METHODOLOGY

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted filing of a new drug application for zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid that targets g-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAAR), for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression.

The study included 543 mostly White female patients with MDD. The mean age of the patients was 40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days.

About 30% of patients were taking an antidepressant.

The primary endpoint was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score at day 15.
 

TAKEAWAY

The zuranolone group showed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group (least square mean [LSM] change on HAM-D, –14.1, vs. –12.3; P = .01; Cohen’s d = 0.23).

Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Results favored zuranolone regardless of the use of antidepressant therapies.

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in anxiety symptoms compared to the patients who received placebo.

The drug was well tolerated, and there were no new safety findings. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence and headache. There was no weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior.
 

IN PRACTICE

The study adds to evidence suggesting zuranolone is a promising novel therapy for treating MDD, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was conducted by Anita H. Clayton, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues. It was published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS

The study was short term, and the patient population was severely depressed at study entry, which may limit application to those with mild or moderate symptoms. There was a robust placebo response, possibly partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an increase in depressive symptoms in the U.S. population, and so frequent in-person visits may have led to an improvement in symptoms even if the patient was receiving placebo.

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen.

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

TOPLINE

Patients who received zuranolone 50 mg/d demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who received placebo, with a rapid onset of effect.

METHODOLOGY

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted filing of a new drug application for zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid that targets g-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAAR), for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression.

The study included 543 mostly White female patients with MDD. The mean age of the patients was 40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days.

About 30% of patients were taking an antidepressant.

The primary endpoint was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score at day 15.
 

TAKEAWAY

The zuranolone group showed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group (least square mean [LSM] change on HAM-D, –14.1, vs. –12.3; P = .01; Cohen’s d = 0.23).

Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Results favored zuranolone regardless of the use of antidepressant therapies.

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in anxiety symptoms compared to the patients who received placebo.

The drug was well tolerated, and there were no new safety findings. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence and headache. There was no weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior.
 

IN PRACTICE

The study adds to evidence suggesting zuranolone is a promising novel therapy for treating MDD, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was conducted by Anita H. Clayton, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues. It was published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS

The study was short term, and the patient population was severely depressed at study entry, which may limit application to those with mild or moderate symptoms. There was a robust placebo response, possibly partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an increase in depressive symptoms in the U.S. population, and so frequent in-person visits may have led to an improvement in symptoms even if the patient was receiving placebo.

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen.

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

TOPLINE

Patients who received zuranolone 50 mg/d demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than those who received placebo, with a rapid onset of effect.

METHODOLOGY

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted filing of a new drug application for zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid that targets g-aminobutyric acid type A receptors (GABAAR), for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) and postpartum depression.

The study included 543 mostly White female patients with MDD. The mean age of the patients was 40 years. Participants were randomly assigned to receive oral zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days.

About 30% of patients were taking an antidepressant.

The primary endpoint was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score at day 15.
 

TAKEAWAY

The zuranolone group showed significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group (least square mean [LSM] change on HAM-D, –14.1, vs. –12.3; P = .01; Cohen’s d = 0.23).

Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Results favored zuranolone regardless of the use of antidepressant therapies.

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in anxiety symptoms compared to the patients who received placebo.

The drug was well tolerated, and there were no new safety findings. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence and headache. There was no weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior.
 

IN PRACTICE

The study adds to evidence suggesting zuranolone is a promising novel therapy for treating MDD, the authors noted.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was conducted by Anita H. Clayton, MD, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues. It was published online May 3 in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS

The study was short term, and the patient population was severely depressed at study entry, which may limit application to those with mild or moderate symptoms. There was a robust placebo response, possibly partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an increase in depressive symptoms in the U.S. population, and so frequent in-person visits may have led to an improvement in symptoms even if the patient was receiving placebo.

DISCLOSURES

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen.

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

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – B cell–depleting therapies in patients with lupus nephritis have a higher likelihood of complete response if B cells are almost completely depleted, and strategies for achieving more complete B-cell depletion continue to be tested, according to evidence presented by Richard A. Furie, MD, at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“If you go back about 20 years ago or so, when we designed the LUNAR and EXPLORER trials, we were scared to death of rituximab [Rituxan and biosimilars], about what would happen when you deplete B cells,” said Dr. Furie, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The LUNAR trial, which compared rituximab with placebo in patients with lupus nephritis, did not show a statistically significant difference in renal outcomes at 1 year. However, a post hoc analysis done several years later told a different story. It looked at patients who achieved complete peripheral depletion of B cells, defined as zero cells per microliter in peripheral blood. “You can see about a fourfold increase in complete response rates in those who were complete B-cell depleters at 1 year,” Dr. Furie told the conference.

It therefore raises the question of how to achieve greater B-cell depletion rates in patients. Dr. Furie said one strategy might be to first mobilize memory B cells and neutralize B cell–activating factor using belimumab (Benlysta), and then treat with rituximab to eliminate B cells. This strategy of sequential belimumab-rituximab treatment has been taken in several clinical trials.
 

More potent B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab

Another approach is to choose more potent B cell–depleting therapies, such as obinutuzumab (Gazyva), which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that was approved in 2013 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The NOBILITY trial compared obinutuzumab with placebo in 125 patients with lupus nephritis who were on background treatment with mycophenolate and corticosteroids. At 1 year, significantly more patients achieved B-cell thresholds either below 5 cells per microliter or even zero cells per microliter than had been seen previously with rituximab.

That also translated into clinical benefit, Dr. Furie said. By week 76, half the patients who had sustained depletion of B cells below 0.4 cells per microliter had a complete response, compared with 35% of those who still had detectable B cells and 18% of the placebo group. Treatment with obinutuzumab did not show any link to higher rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, or deaths.

“I think we’re all pretty much convinced more is better, without introducing safety issues,” Dr. Furie said in an interview.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data did suggest that renal outcomes were better with more complete depletion, but raised the question of whether this might increase the risk of infections or infectious severity.

Dr. Furie noted that complete response not only required improvement in proteinuria, complement levels, and anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, but also in serum creatinine, “because maintenance of eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] is the name of the game with lupus nephritis.”

However, he also pointed out that there may be a ceiling for response rates in patients with lupus nephritis when using stricter endpoints for serum creatinine. The NOBILITY trial required patients to achieve a serum creatinine that did not increase by more than 15% from baseline. But when researchers did an analysis that instead only required patients to achieve a reduction in proteinuria and maintain normal creatinine, the complete response rate in complete B-cell depleters increased to 72%, compared with 50% in partial depleters and 37% in the placebo group.
 

Newer strategies for greater B-cell depletion

A third strategy for achieving greater B-cell depletion is bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs. “I called it a ‘frenemy,’ where it’s taking the activated T cell and introducing it to the B cell, and it can kill it via direct T-cell killing,” Dr. Furie said in an interview. Mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) is one example, and is currently in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with SLE.

And the fourth strategy, which has proved so successful in lymphoma, is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). Dr. Furie cited the recent publication of data from a CAR T clinical trial in five patients with refractory SLE. He said the data were impressive but the question for this treatment approach will be which patients are most likely to benefit and whether CAR T will experience the same ceiling effect because of pre-existing kidney damage.

“We won’t be seeing 100% response rates,” he said. “What we’ll be seeing, as a maximum, might be about 70%.” The big question for B-cell depletion in lupus was therefore how best to achieve it. “Is the future a potent monoclonal antibody, or is it in fact CAR T?”

Dr. Merrill said the analyses from B-cell depletion trials, showing greater response rates among more complete depleters, highlighted the importance of a personalized approach to treating lupus.

“One size fits all is never optimal in any disease, but it will prove a nonstarter in lupus, where we ought to be trying to find the optimal treatment regimen for each patient guided by biomarkers,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Furie reported having financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, which manufactures obinutuzumab and rituximab, as well as GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – B cell–depleting therapies in patients with lupus nephritis have a higher likelihood of complete response if B cells are almost completely depleted, and strategies for achieving more complete B-cell depletion continue to be tested, according to evidence presented by Richard A. Furie, MD, at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“If you go back about 20 years ago or so, when we designed the LUNAR and EXPLORER trials, we were scared to death of rituximab [Rituxan and biosimilars], about what would happen when you deplete B cells,” said Dr. Furie, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The LUNAR trial, which compared rituximab with placebo in patients with lupus nephritis, did not show a statistically significant difference in renal outcomes at 1 year. However, a post hoc analysis done several years later told a different story. It looked at patients who achieved complete peripheral depletion of B cells, defined as zero cells per microliter in peripheral blood. “You can see about a fourfold increase in complete response rates in those who were complete B-cell depleters at 1 year,” Dr. Furie told the conference.

It therefore raises the question of how to achieve greater B-cell depletion rates in patients. Dr. Furie said one strategy might be to first mobilize memory B cells and neutralize B cell–activating factor using belimumab (Benlysta), and then treat with rituximab to eliminate B cells. This strategy of sequential belimumab-rituximab treatment has been taken in several clinical trials.
 

More potent B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab

Another approach is to choose more potent B cell–depleting therapies, such as obinutuzumab (Gazyva), which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that was approved in 2013 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The NOBILITY trial compared obinutuzumab with placebo in 125 patients with lupus nephritis who were on background treatment with mycophenolate and corticosteroids. At 1 year, significantly more patients achieved B-cell thresholds either below 5 cells per microliter or even zero cells per microliter than had been seen previously with rituximab.

That also translated into clinical benefit, Dr. Furie said. By week 76, half the patients who had sustained depletion of B cells below 0.4 cells per microliter had a complete response, compared with 35% of those who still had detectable B cells and 18% of the placebo group. Treatment with obinutuzumab did not show any link to higher rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, or deaths.

“I think we’re all pretty much convinced more is better, without introducing safety issues,” Dr. Furie said in an interview.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data did suggest that renal outcomes were better with more complete depletion, but raised the question of whether this might increase the risk of infections or infectious severity.

Dr. Furie noted that complete response not only required improvement in proteinuria, complement levels, and anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, but also in serum creatinine, “because maintenance of eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] is the name of the game with lupus nephritis.”

However, he also pointed out that there may be a ceiling for response rates in patients with lupus nephritis when using stricter endpoints for serum creatinine. The NOBILITY trial required patients to achieve a serum creatinine that did not increase by more than 15% from baseline. But when researchers did an analysis that instead only required patients to achieve a reduction in proteinuria and maintain normal creatinine, the complete response rate in complete B-cell depleters increased to 72%, compared with 50% in partial depleters and 37% in the placebo group.
 

Newer strategies for greater B-cell depletion

A third strategy for achieving greater B-cell depletion is bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs. “I called it a ‘frenemy,’ where it’s taking the activated T cell and introducing it to the B cell, and it can kill it via direct T-cell killing,” Dr. Furie said in an interview. Mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) is one example, and is currently in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with SLE.

And the fourth strategy, which has proved so successful in lymphoma, is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). Dr. Furie cited the recent publication of data from a CAR T clinical trial in five patients with refractory SLE. He said the data were impressive but the question for this treatment approach will be which patients are most likely to benefit and whether CAR T will experience the same ceiling effect because of pre-existing kidney damage.

“We won’t be seeing 100% response rates,” he said. “What we’ll be seeing, as a maximum, might be about 70%.” The big question for B-cell depletion in lupus was therefore how best to achieve it. “Is the future a potent monoclonal antibody, or is it in fact CAR T?”

Dr. Merrill said the analyses from B-cell depletion trials, showing greater response rates among more complete depleters, highlighted the importance of a personalized approach to treating lupus.

“One size fits all is never optimal in any disease, but it will prove a nonstarter in lupus, where we ought to be trying to find the optimal treatment regimen for each patient guided by biomarkers,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Furie reported having financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, which manufactures obinutuzumab and rituximab, as well as GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – B cell–depleting therapies in patients with lupus nephritis have a higher likelihood of complete response if B cells are almost completely depleted, and strategies for achieving more complete B-cell depletion continue to be tested, according to evidence presented by Richard A. Furie, MD, at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“If you go back about 20 years ago or so, when we designed the LUNAR and EXPLORER trials, we were scared to death of rituximab [Rituxan and biosimilars], about what would happen when you deplete B cells,” said Dr. Furie, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The LUNAR trial, which compared rituximab with placebo in patients with lupus nephritis, did not show a statistically significant difference in renal outcomes at 1 year. However, a post hoc analysis done several years later told a different story. It looked at patients who achieved complete peripheral depletion of B cells, defined as zero cells per microliter in peripheral blood. “You can see about a fourfold increase in complete response rates in those who were complete B-cell depleters at 1 year,” Dr. Furie told the conference.

It therefore raises the question of how to achieve greater B-cell depletion rates in patients. Dr. Furie said one strategy might be to first mobilize memory B cells and neutralize B cell–activating factor using belimumab (Benlysta), and then treat with rituximab to eliminate B cells. This strategy of sequential belimumab-rituximab treatment has been taken in several clinical trials.
 

More potent B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab

Another approach is to choose more potent B cell–depleting therapies, such as obinutuzumab (Gazyva), which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that was approved in 2013 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The NOBILITY trial compared obinutuzumab with placebo in 125 patients with lupus nephritis who were on background treatment with mycophenolate and corticosteroids. At 1 year, significantly more patients achieved B-cell thresholds either below 5 cells per microliter or even zero cells per microliter than had been seen previously with rituximab.

That also translated into clinical benefit, Dr. Furie said. By week 76, half the patients who had sustained depletion of B cells below 0.4 cells per microliter had a complete response, compared with 35% of those who still had detectable B cells and 18% of the placebo group. Treatment with obinutuzumab did not show any link to higher rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, or deaths.

“I think we’re all pretty much convinced more is better, without introducing safety issues,” Dr. Furie said in an interview.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data did suggest that renal outcomes were better with more complete depletion, but raised the question of whether this might increase the risk of infections or infectious severity.

Dr. Furie noted that complete response not only required improvement in proteinuria, complement levels, and anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, but also in serum creatinine, “because maintenance of eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] is the name of the game with lupus nephritis.”

However, he also pointed out that there may be a ceiling for response rates in patients with lupus nephritis when using stricter endpoints for serum creatinine. The NOBILITY trial required patients to achieve a serum creatinine that did not increase by more than 15% from baseline. But when researchers did an analysis that instead only required patients to achieve a reduction in proteinuria and maintain normal creatinine, the complete response rate in complete B-cell depleters increased to 72%, compared with 50% in partial depleters and 37% in the placebo group.
 

Newer strategies for greater B-cell depletion

A third strategy for achieving greater B-cell depletion is bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs. “I called it a ‘frenemy,’ where it’s taking the activated T cell and introducing it to the B cell, and it can kill it via direct T-cell killing,” Dr. Furie said in an interview. Mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) is one example, and is currently in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with SLE.

And the fourth strategy, which has proved so successful in lymphoma, is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). Dr. Furie cited the recent publication of data from a CAR T clinical trial in five patients with refractory SLE. He said the data were impressive but the question for this treatment approach will be which patients are most likely to benefit and whether CAR T will experience the same ceiling effect because of pre-existing kidney damage.

“We won’t be seeing 100% response rates,” he said. “What we’ll be seeing, as a maximum, might be about 70%.” The big question for B-cell depletion in lupus was therefore how best to achieve it. “Is the future a potent monoclonal antibody, or is it in fact CAR T?”

Dr. Merrill said the analyses from B-cell depletion trials, showing greater response rates among more complete depleters, highlighted the importance of a personalized approach to treating lupus.

“One size fits all is never optimal in any disease, but it will prove a nonstarter in lupus, where we ought to be trying to find the optimal treatment regimen for each patient guided by biomarkers,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Furie reported having financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, which manufactures obinutuzumab and rituximab, as well as GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of hormonal receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Historically, treatments targeting HER2 were found to be ineffective in patients with TNBC and known HER2-zero status. Researchers more recently identified a new type of TNBC involving patients with low expression of HER2. Patients with this type of breast cancer, now referred to as HER2-low, have immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis scores of 1+ or 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) stain.

In a new study, patients with TNBC who initially tested as having HER2-zero status were later found to have HER2-low status following repeated biopsies. These HER2-low results were of great clinical significance for this patient population, said Yael Bar, MD, PhD, during her presentation of the research, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Previously, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial demonstrated that the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. “As a result [of the DESTINY-Breast04 findings], T-DXd is now approved for HER2-low but not HER2-zero triple-negative metastatic breast cancer."

“While HER2-low is detected in about 30%-50% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer, several studies have shown that HER2 status is heterogeneous and also dynamic over time, said Dr. Bar, who is an international research fellow in the breast cancer group at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

In the new study, Dr. Bar and her co-authors retrospectively identified 512 TNBC patients from 2000 to 2022 from an institutional database. They included core, surgical, or metastatic biopsies. Participants had a mean age of 52 years, with 54% over age 50. They were 83% White, 7% African American, 5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other. Stage II was most common at diagnosis at 48%, followed by stage 1 (28%), stage 3 (14%), and stage IV (8%).

Most patients had undergone one (38%) or two (45%) biopsies, while 9% underwent three biopsies, 6% underwent four biopsies, and 2% underwent five or more.

Among all 512 patients in the study, 60% had a HER2-low result on their first biopsy. As of the second biopsy, 73% had at least one HER2-low result, with 13% of the first HER2-low results occurring at the second biopsy. As of the third biopsy, 81% had a HER2-low result, with 9% occurring for the first time. At the fourth biopsy, 86% had a positive result, with 8% occurring for the first time. All patients with five or more biopsies had at least one HER2-low result and none were first-time results.

At the second biopsy, a HER2-low result was detected for 32% of patients for the first time. At the third biopsy, a new HER2-low result was detected in 33%, and at the fourth biopsy, a new HER-2 result was detected in 38%.

The researchers matched early and metastatic biopsies in 71 patients, and 44% had changed status: 68% of those with a status change went HER2-low to HER2-zero, 26% from HER2-zero to HER2-low, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive. Among 50 patients with matched metastatic biopsies, 33% had a change in status, with 63% going from HER2-zero to HER2-low, 31% from HER2-low to HER2-zero, and 6% from HER2-low to HER2-positive.

“We showed here that repeat biopsies can identify new HER2-low results for patients who were previously ineligible for T-DXd; and therefore, we think that a repeat biopsy could be considered if feasible and safe. Also, if a repeat biopsy is performed for any reason, but mainly upon metastatic recurrence, receptors should be retested,” said Dr. Bar.

After Dr. Bar’s presentation, Barbara Pistilli, MD served as a discussant. She noted the increased HER2-low results over successive biopsies. “However, here the question is, are these results related to the changes in the analytical methods over the past 20 years or the changes in the guidelines in terms of definition of HER2 status, or are they more related to a true evolution of HER2 status with the evolution of the disease?” she said during her presentation. Dr. Pistilli is chair of the breast disease committee at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

She also said that HER2 expression can vary even between different parts of the same tumor and called for alternative methods to following HER2 expression. “I don’t think that we can follow our patients with multiple biopsies over the disease evolution, so we have to find other tools, such as target-positive [circulating tumor cells], or antibody-radiolabeled PET scan in order to better follow the intermetastasis target heterogeneity over time, and finally define what is the optimal ADC sequential strategy for each patient,” said Dr. Pistilli.

Comoderator Michael Danso, MD, also weighed in when asked for comment. 

“It was an important trial to show that serial biopsies potentially allow more patients to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk. However, he pointed out the concerns of a statistician who had spoken up during the question-and-answer session who said that the positive results could simply be the consequence of repeated testing. “If you do a test often enough, statistically you’re going to get a difference in outcome. That was an important point made. Also, if you’re going to get 100% of patients who are eventually going to [develop HER2-low status], the question is, can you just treat everybody with trastuzumab deruxtecan and not do these sequential biopsies? Obviously that is subject to cost; it’s subject to toxicity as well, so you probably want documentation that there is a HER2-low result,” said Dr. Danso.

Dr. Bar has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Pistilli has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, PIERRE FABRE, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received research funding through her institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Merus, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology. She has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

*This story was updated on 6/13/2023.

Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network

Pleural Disease Section

Lobectomy with intrathoracic nodal dissection remains the standard of care for early stage (tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm) peripheral non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This practice is primarily influenced by data from the mid-1990s associating limited resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) with increased recurrence rate and mortality compared with lobectomy (Ginsberg et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:615). Recent advances in video and robot-assisted thoracic surgery, as well as the implementation of lung cancer screening, improvement in minimally invasive diagnostic modalities, and neoadjuvant therapies have driven the medical community to revisit the role of sublobar lung resection.

Two newly published large randomized control multicenter multinational trials (Saji et al. Lancet. 2022;399:1670 and Altorki et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:489) have challenged our well-established practices. They compared overall and disease-free survival sublobar to lobar resection of early stage NSCLC (tumor size ≤ 2.0 cm and negative intraoperative nodal disease) and demonstrated noninferiority of sublobar resection with respect to overall survival and disease-free survival. While the sublobar resection in the Saji et al. trial consisted strictly of segmentectomy, the majority of sublobar resections in the Altorki et al. trial were wedge resections. Interestingly, both trials chose lower cut-offs for tumor size (≤ 2.0 cm) compared with the Ginsberg trial (≤ 3.0 cm), which could arguably have accounted for this difference in outcomes. In summary, these emerging data are here to tell us a new story by supporting more limited anatomical lung resection options for our patients with early stage NSCLC.

Christopher Yurosko, DO – Section Fellow-in-Training

Melissa Rosas, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Labib Debiane, MD - Section Member-at-Large

Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network

Pleural Disease Section

Lobectomy with intrathoracic nodal dissection remains the standard of care for early stage (tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm) peripheral non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This practice is primarily influenced by data from the mid-1990s associating limited resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) with increased recurrence rate and mortality compared with lobectomy (Ginsberg et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:615). Recent advances in video and robot-assisted thoracic surgery, as well as the implementation of lung cancer screening, improvement in minimally invasive diagnostic modalities, and neoadjuvant therapies have driven the medical community to revisit the role of sublobar lung resection.

Two newly published large randomized control multicenter multinational trials (Saji et al. Lancet. 2022;399:1670 and Altorki et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:489) have challenged our well-established practices. They compared overall and disease-free survival sublobar to lobar resection of early stage NSCLC (tumor size ≤ 2.0 cm and negative intraoperative nodal disease) and demonstrated noninferiority of sublobar resection with respect to overall survival and disease-free survival. While the sublobar resection in the Saji et al. trial consisted strictly of segmentectomy, the majority of sublobar resections in the Altorki et al. trial were wedge resections. Interestingly, both trials chose lower cut-offs for tumor size (≤ 2.0 cm) compared with the Ginsberg trial (≤ 3.0 cm), which could arguably have accounted for this difference in outcomes. In summary, these emerging data are here to tell us a new story by supporting more limited anatomical lung resection options for our patients with early stage NSCLC.

Christopher Yurosko, DO – Section Fellow-in-Training

Melissa Rosas, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Labib Debiane, MD - Section Member-at-Large

Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network

Pleural Disease Section

Lobectomy with intrathoracic nodal dissection remains the standard of care for early stage (tumor size ≤ 3.0 cm) peripheral non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This practice is primarily influenced by data from the mid-1990s associating limited resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) with increased recurrence rate and mortality compared with lobectomy (Ginsberg et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60:615). Recent advances in video and robot-assisted thoracic surgery, as well as the implementation of lung cancer screening, improvement in minimally invasive diagnostic modalities, and neoadjuvant therapies have driven the medical community to revisit the role of sublobar lung resection.

Two newly published large randomized control multicenter multinational trials (Saji et al. Lancet. 2022;399:1670 and Altorki et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:489) have challenged our well-established practices. They compared overall and disease-free survival sublobar to lobar resection of early stage NSCLC (tumor size ≤ 2.0 cm and negative intraoperative nodal disease) and demonstrated noninferiority of sublobar resection with respect to overall survival and disease-free survival. While the sublobar resection in the Saji et al. trial consisted strictly of segmentectomy, the majority of sublobar resections in the Altorki et al. trial were wedge resections. Interestingly, both trials chose lower cut-offs for tumor size (≤ 2.0 cm) compared with the Ginsberg trial (≤ 3.0 cm), which could arguably have accounted for this difference in outcomes. In summary, these emerging data are here to tell us a new story by supporting more limited anatomical lung resection options for our patients with early stage NSCLC.

Christopher Yurosko, DO – Section Fellow-in-Training

Melissa Rosas, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Labib Debiane, MD - Section Member-at-Large

The development of [artificial intelligence] is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other.

Bill Gates ¹

As the world emerges from the pandemic and the health care system faces new challenges, technology has become an increasingly important tool for health care professionals (HCPs). One such technology is the large language model (LLM), which has the potential to revolutionize the health care industry. ChatGPT, a popular LLM developed by OpenAI, has gained particular attention in the medical community for its ability to pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam.² This article will explore the benefits and potential pitfalls of using LLMs like ChatGPT in medicine and health care.

Benefits

HCP burnout is a serious issue that can lead to lower productivity, increased medical errors, and decreased patient satisfaction.³ LLMs can alleviate some administrative burdens on HCPs, allowing them to focus on patient care. By assisting with billing, coding, insurance claims, and organizing schedules, LLMs like ChatGPT can free up time for HCPs to focus on what they do best: providing quality patient care.⁴ ChatGPT also can assist with diagnoses by providing accurate and reliable information based on a vast amount of clinical data. By learning the relationships between different medical conditions, symptoms, and treatment options, ChatGPT can provide an appropriate differential diagnosis (Figure 1).

Imaging medical specialists like radiologists, pathologists, dermatologists, and others can benefit from combining computer vision diagnostics with ChatGPT report creation abilities to streamline the diagnostic workflow and improve diagnostic accuracy (Figure 2).

AI Bill of Rights

In order to protect the American public, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has released a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights that emphasizes 5 principles to protect the public from the harmful effects of AI models, including safe and effective systems; algorithmic discrimination protection; data privacy; notice and explanation; and human alternatives, considerations, and fallback (Figure 3).¹⁷

One of the biggest challenges with LLMs like ChatGPT is the prevalence of inaccurate information or so-called hallucinations.¹⁶ These inaccuracies stem from the inability of LLMs to distinguish between real and fake information. To prevent hallucinations, researchers have proposed several methods, including training models on more diverse data, using adversarial training methods, and human-in-the-loop approaches.²¹ In addition, medicine-specific models like GatorTron, medPaLM, and Almanac were developed, increasing the accuracy of factual results.^22-24 Unfortunately, only the GatorTron model is available to the public through the NVIDIA developers’ program.²⁵

Despite these shortcomings, the future of LLMs in health care is promising. Although these models will not replace HCPs, they can help reduce the unnecessary burden on them, prevent burnout, and enable HCPs and patients spend more time together. Establishing an official hospital AI oversight governing body that would promote best practices could ensure the trustworthy implementation of these new technologies.²⁶

Conclusions

The use of ChatGPT and other LLMs in health care has the potential to revolutionize the industry. By assisting HCPs with administrative tasks, improving the accuracy and reliability of diagnoses, and engaging patients, ChatGPT can help health care organizations provide better care to their patients. While LLMs are not a substitute for human interaction and personalized care, they can augment the work of HCPs, making health care more accessible and efficient. As the health care industry continues to evolve, it will be exciting to see how ChatGPT and other LLMs are used to improve patient outcomes and quality of care. In addition, AI technologies like ChatGPT offer enormous potential in medical education and research. To ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks, developing trustworthy AI health care products and establishing oversight governing bodies to ensure their implementation is essential. By doing so, we can help HCPs focus on what matters most, providing high-quality care to patients.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

The development of [artificial intelligence] is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other.

Bill Gates ¹

As the world emerges from the pandemic and the health care system faces new challenges, technology has become an increasingly important tool for health care professionals (HCPs). One such technology is the large language model (LLM), which has the potential to revolutionize the health care industry. ChatGPT, a popular LLM developed by OpenAI, has gained particular attention in the medical community for its ability to pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam.² This article will explore the benefits and potential pitfalls of using LLMs like ChatGPT in medicine and health care.

Benefits

HCP burnout is a serious issue that can lead to lower productivity, increased medical errors, and decreased patient satisfaction.³ LLMs can alleviate some administrative burdens on HCPs, allowing them to focus on patient care. By assisting with billing, coding, insurance claims, and organizing schedules, LLMs like ChatGPT can free up time for HCPs to focus on what they do best: providing quality patient care.⁴ ChatGPT also can assist with diagnoses by providing accurate and reliable information based on a vast amount of clinical data. By learning the relationships between different medical conditions, symptoms, and treatment options, ChatGPT can provide an appropriate differential diagnosis (Figure 1).

Imaging medical specialists like radiologists, pathologists, dermatologists, and others can benefit from combining computer vision diagnostics with ChatGPT report creation abilities to streamline the diagnostic workflow and improve diagnostic accuracy (Figure 2).

AI Bill of Rights

In order to protect the American public, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has released a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights that emphasizes 5 principles to protect the public from the harmful effects of AI models, including safe and effective systems; algorithmic discrimination protection; data privacy; notice and explanation; and human alternatives, considerations, and fallback (Figure 3).¹⁷

One of the biggest challenges with LLMs like ChatGPT is the prevalence of inaccurate information or so-called hallucinations.¹⁶ These inaccuracies stem from the inability of LLMs to distinguish between real and fake information. To prevent hallucinations, researchers have proposed several methods, including training models on more diverse data, using adversarial training methods, and human-in-the-loop approaches.²¹ In addition, medicine-specific models like GatorTron, medPaLM, and Almanac were developed, increasing the accuracy of factual results.^22-24 Unfortunately, only the GatorTron model is available to the public through the NVIDIA developers’ program.²⁵

Despite these shortcomings, the future of LLMs in health care is promising. Although these models will not replace HCPs, they can help reduce the unnecessary burden on them, prevent burnout, and enable HCPs and patients spend more time together. Establishing an official hospital AI oversight governing body that would promote best practices could ensure the trustworthy implementation of these new technologies.²⁶

Conclusions

The use of ChatGPT and other LLMs in health care has the potential to revolutionize the industry. By assisting HCPs with administrative tasks, improving the accuracy and reliability of diagnoses, and engaging patients, ChatGPT can help health care organizations provide better care to their patients. While LLMs are not a substitute for human interaction and personalized care, they can augment the work of HCPs, making health care more accessible and efficient. As the health care industry continues to evolve, it will be exciting to see how ChatGPT and other LLMs are used to improve patient outcomes and quality of care. In addition, AI technologies like ChatGPT offer enormous potential in medical education and research. To ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks, developing trustworthy AI health care products and establishing oversight governing bodies to ensure their implementation is essential. By doing so, we can help HCPs focus on what matters most, providing high-quality care to patients.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

The development of [artificial intelligence] is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other.

Bill Gates ¹

As the world emerges from the pandemic and the health care system faces new challenges, technology has become an increasingly important tool for health care professionals (HCPs). One such technology is the large language model (LLM), which has the potential to revolutionize the health care industry. ChatGPT, a popular LLM developed by OpenAI, has gained particular attention in the medical community for its ability to pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam.² This article will explore the benefits and potential pitfalls of using LLMs like ChatGPT in medicine and health care.

Benefits

HCP burnout is a serious issue that can lead to lower productivity, increased medical errors, and decreased patient satisfaction.³ LLMs can alleviate some administrative burdens on HCPs, allowing them to focus on patient care. By assisting with billing, coding, insurance claims, and organizing schedules, LLMs like ChatGPT can free up time for HCPs to focus on what they do best: providing quality patient care.⁴ ChatGPT also can assist with diagnoses by providing accurate and reliable information based on a vast amount of clinical data. By learning the relationships between different medical conditions, symptoms, and treatment options, ChatGPT can provide an appropriate differential diagnosis (Figure 1).

Imaging medical specialists like radiologists, pathologists, dermatologists, and others can benefit from combining computer vision diagnostics with ChatGPT report creation abilities to streamline the diagnostic workflow and improve diagnostic accuracy (Figure 2).

AI Bill of Rights

In order to protect the American public, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has released a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights that emphasizes 5 principles to protect the public from the harmful effects of AI models, including safe and effective systems; algorithmic discrimination protection; data privacy; notice and explanation; and human alternatives, considerations, and fallback (Figure 3).¹⁷

One of the biggest challenges with LLMs like ChatGPT is the prevalence of inaccurate information or so-called hallucinations.¹⁶ These inaccuracies stem from the inability of LLMs to distinguish between real and fake information. To prevent hallucinations, researchers have proposed several methods, including training models on more diverse data, using adversarial training methods, and human-in-the-loop approaches.²¹ In addition, medicine-specific models like GatorTron, medPaLM, and Almanac were developed, increasing the accuracy of factual results.^22-24 Unfortunately, only the GatorTron model is available to the public through the NVIDIA developers’ program.²⁵

Despite these shortcomings, the future of LLMs in health care is promising. Although these models will not replace HCPs, they can help reduce the unnecessary burden on them, prevent burnout, and enable HCPs and patients spend more time together. Establishing an official hospital AI oversight governing body that would promote best practices could ensure the trustworthy implementation of these new technologies.²⁶

Conclusions

The use of ChatGPT and other LLMs in health care has the potential to revolutionize the industry. By assisting HCPs with administrative tasks, improving the accuracy and reliability of diagnoses, and engaging patients, ChatGPT can help health care organizations provide better care to their patients. While LLMs are not a substitute for human interaction and personalized care, they can augment the work of HCPs, making health care more accessible and efficient. As the health care industry continues to evolve, it will be exciting to see how ChatGPT and other LLMs are used to improve patient outcomes and quality of care. In addition, AI technologies like ChatGPT offer enormous potential in medical education and research. To ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks, developing trustworthy AI health care products and establishing oversight governing bodies to ensure their implementation is essential. By doing so, we can help HCPs focus on what matters most, providing high-quality care to patients.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Unlike many of you, maybe even most of you, I can recall when my office records were handwritten, some would say scribbled, on pieces of paper. They were decipherable by a select few. Some veteran assistants never mastered the skill. Pages were sometimes lavishly illustrated with drawings of body parts, often because I couldn’t remember or spell the correct anatomic term. When I needed to send a referring letter to another provider I typed it myself because dictating never quite suited my personality.

When I joined a small primary care group, the computer-savvy lead physician and a programmer developed our own homegrown EHR. It relied on scanning documents, as so many of us still generated handwritten notes. Even the most vociferous Luddites among us loved the system from day 2.

However, for a variety of reasons, some defensible some just plain bad, our beloved system needed to be replaced after 7 years. We then invested in an off-the-shelf EHR system that promised more capabilities. We were told there would be a learning curve but the plateau would come quickly and we would enjoy our new electronic assistant.

You’ve lived the rest of the story. The learning curve was steep and long and the plateau was a time gobbler. I was probably the most efficient provider in the group, and after 6 months I was leaving the office an hour later than I had been and was seeing the same number of patients. Most of my coworkers were staying and/or working on the computer at home for an extra 2 hours. This change could be easily documented by speaking with our spouses and children. I understand from my colleagues who have stayed in the business that over the ensuing decade and a half since my first experience with the EHR, its insatiable appetite for a clinician’s time has not abated.

The authors of a recent article in Annals of Family Medicine offer up some advice on how this tragic situation might be brought under control. First, the investigators point out that the phenomenon of after-hours EHR work, sometimes referred to as WOW (work outside of work), has not gone unnoticed by health system administrators and vendors who develop and sell the EHRs. However, analyzing the voluminous data necessary is not any easy task and for the most part has resulted in metrics that cannot be easily applied over a variety of practice scenarios. Many health care organizations, even large ones, have simply given up and rely on the WOW data and recommendations provided by the vendors, obviously lending the situation a faint odor of conflict of interest.

The bottom line is that after a couple of decades, there is no well defined way of quantifying the time-gobbling effect of an EHR system. It would seem to me just asking the spouses and significant others of the clinicians would be sufficient. But, authors of the paper have more specific recommendations. First, they suggest that time working on the computer outside of scheduled time with patients should be separated from any other calculation of EHR usage. They encourage vendors and time-management researchers to develop standardized and validated methods for measuring active EHR use. And, finally they recommend that all EHR work done outside of time scheduled with patients be attributed to WOW. They feel that clearly labeling it work outside of work offers health care organizations a better chance of developing policies that will address the scourge of burnout.

This, unfortunately, is another tragic example of how clinicians have lost control of our work environments. The fact that 20 years have passed and there is still no standardized method for determining how much time we spend on the computer is more evidence we need to raise our voices.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Unlike many of you, maybe even most of you, I can recall when my office records were handwritten, some would say scribbled, on pieces of paper. They were decipherable by a select few. Some veteran assistants never mastered the skill. Pages were sometimes lavishly illustrated with drawings of body parts, often because I couldn’t remember or spell the correct anatomic term. When I needed to send a referring letter to another provider I typed it myself because dictating never quite suited my personality.

When I joined a small primary care group, the computer-savvy lead physician and a programmer developed our own homegrown EHR. It relied on scanning documents, as so many of us still generated handwritten notes. Even the most vociferous Luddites among us loved the system from day 2.

However, for a variety of reasons, some defensible some just plain bad, our beloved system needed to be replaced after 7 years. We then invested in an off-the-shelf EHR system that promised more capabilities. We were told there would be a learning curve but the plateau would come quickly and we would enjoy our new electronic assistant.

You’ve lived the rest of the story. The learning curve was steep and long and the plateau was a time gobbler. I was probably the most efficient provider in the group, and after 6 months I was leaving the office an hour later than I had been and was seeing the same number of patients. Most of my coworkers were staying and/or working on the computer at home for an extra 2 hours. This change could be easily documented by speaking with our spouses and children. I understand from my colleagues who have stayed in the business that over the ensuing decade and a half since my first experience with the EHR, its insatiable appetite for a clinician’s time has not abated.

The authors of a recent article in Annals of Family Medicine offer up some advice on how this tragic situation might be brought under control. First, the investigators point out that the phenomenon of after-hours EHR work, sometimes referred to as WOW (work outside of work), has not gone unnoticed by health system administrators and vendors who develop and sell the EHRs. However, analyzing the voluminous data necessary is not any easy task and for the most part has resulted in metrics that cannot be easily applied over a variety of practice scenarios. Many health care organizations, even large ones, have simply given up and rely on the WOW data and recommendations provided by the vendors, obviously lending the situation a faint odor of conflict of interest.

The bottom line is that after a couple of decades, there is no well defined way of quantifying the time-gobbling effect of an EHR system. It would seem to me just asking the spouses and significant others of the clinicians would be sufficient. But, authors of the paper have more specific recommendations. First, they suggest that time working on the computer outside of scheduled time with patients should be separated from any other calculation of EHR usage. They encourage vendors and time-management researchers to develop standardized and validated methods for measuring active EHR use. And, finally they recommend that all EHR work done outside of time scheduled with patients be attributed to WOW. They feel that clearly labeling it work outside of work offers health care organizations a better chance of developing policies that will address the scourge of burnout.

This, unfortunately, is another tragic example of how clinicians have lost control of our work environments. The fact that 20 years have passed and there is still no standardized method for determining how much time we spend on the computer is more evidence we need to raise our voices.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Unlike many of you, maybe even most of you, I can recall when my office records were handwritten, some would say scribbled, on pieces of paper. They were decipherable by a select few. Some veteran assistants never mastered the skill. Pages were sometimes lavishly illustrated with drawings of body parts, often because I couldn’t remember or spell the correct anatomic term. When I needed to send a referring letter to another provider I typed it myself because dictating never quite suited my personality.

When I joined a small primary care group, the computer-savvy lead physician and a programmer developed our own homegrown EHR. It relied on scanning documents, as so many of us still generated handwritten notes. Even the most vociferous Luddites among us loved the system from day 2.

However, for a variety of reasons, some defensible some just plain bad, our beloved system needed to be replaced after 7 years. We then invested in an off-the-shelf EHR system that promised more capabilities. We were told there would be a learning curve but the plateau would come quickly and we would enjoy our new electronic assistant.

You’ve lived the rest of the story. The learning curve was steep and long and the plateau was a time gobbler. I was probably the most efficient provider in the group, and after 6 months I was leaving the office an hour later than I had been and was seeing the same number of patients. Most of my coworkers were staying and/or working on the computer at home for an extra 2 hours. This change could be easily documented by speaking with our spouses and children. I understand from my colleagues who have stayed in the business that over the ensuing decade and a half since my first experience with the EHR, its insatiable appetite for a clinician’s time has not abated.

The authors of a recent article in Annals of Family Medicine offer up some advice on how this tragic situation might be brought under control. First, the investigators point out that the phenomenon of after-hours EHR work, sometimes referred to as WOW (work outside of work), has not gone unnoticed by health system administrators and vendors who develop and sell the EHRs. However, analyzing the voluminous data necessary is not any easy task and for the most part has resulted in metrics that cannot be easily applied over a variety of practice scenarios. Many health care organizations, even large ones, have simply given up and rely on the WOW data and recommendations provided by the vendors, obviously lending the situation a faint odor of conflict of interest.

The bottom line is that after a couple of decades, there is no well defined way of quantifying the time-gobbling effect of an EHR system. It would seem to me just asking the spouses and significant others of the clinicians would be sufficient. But, authors of the paper have more specific recommendations. First, they suggest that time working on the computer outside of scheduled time with patients should be separated from any other calculation of EHR usage. They encourage vendors and time-management researchers to develop standardized and validated methods for measuring active EHR use. And, finally they recommend that all EHR work done outside of time scheduled with patients be attributed to WOW. They feel that clearly labeling it work outside of work offers health care organizations a better chance of developing policies that will address the scourge of burnout.

This, unfortunately, is another tragic example of how clinicians have lost control of our work environments. The fact that 20 years have passed and there is still no standardized method for determining how much time we spend on the computer is more evidence we need to raise our voices.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Could glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as semaglutide – approved as Ozempic to treat type 2 diabetes and as Wegovy to treat obesity, both from Novo Nordisk – also curb addictions and compulsive behaviors?

As demand for semaglutide for weight loss grew following approval of Wegovy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, anecdotal reports of unexpected potential added benefits also began to surface.

Some patients taking these drugs for type 2 diabetes or weight loss also lost interest in addictive and compulsive behaviors such as drinking alcohol, smoking, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking, as reported in articles in the New York Times and The Atlantic, among others.

There is also some preliminary research to support these observations.

This news organization invited three experts to weigh in.
 

Recent and upcoming studies

The senior author of a recent randomized controlled trial of 127 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), Anders Fink-Jensen, MD, said: “I hope that GLP-1 analogs in the future can be used against AUD, but before that can happen, several GLP-1 trials [are needed to] prove an effect on alcohol intake.”

His study involved patients who received exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon, AstraZeneca), the first-generation GLP-1 agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, over 26 weeks, but treatment did not reduce the number of heavy drinking days (the primary outcome), compared with placebo.  

However, in post hoc, exploratory analyses, heavy drinking days and total alcohol intake were significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with AUD and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²).

The participants were also shown pictures of alcohol or neutral subjects while they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging. Those who had received exenatide, compared with placebo, had significantly less activation of brain reward centers when shown the pictures of alcohol.

“Something is happening in the brain and activation of the reward center is hampered by the GLP-1 compound,” Dr. Fink-Jensen, a clinical psychologist at the Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, remarked in an email.

“If patients with AUD already fulfill the criteria for semaglutide (or other GLP-1 analogs) by having type 2 diabetes and/or a BMI over 30 kg/m², they can of course use the compound right now,” he noted.

His team is also beginning a study in patients with AUD and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² to investigate the effects on alcohol intake of semaglutide up to 2.4 mg weekly, the maximum dose currently approved for obesity in the United States.

“Based on the potency of exenatide and semaglutide,” Dr. Fink-Jensen said, “we expect that semaglutide will cause a stronger reduction in alcohol intake” than exenatide.

Animal studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists suppress alcohol-induced reward, alcohol intake, motivation to consume alcohol, alcohol seeking, and relapse drinking of alcohol, Elisabet Jerlhag Holm, PhD, noted.

Interestingly, these agents also suppress the reward, intake, and motivation to consume other addictive drugs like cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine, and some opioids, Jerlhag Holm, professor, department of pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted in an email.

In a recently published preclinical study, her group provides evidence to help explain anecdotal reports from patients with obesity treated with semaglutide who claim they also reduced their alcohol intake. In the study, semaglutide both reduced alcohol intake (and relapse-like drinking) and decreased body weight of rats of both sexes.

“Future research should explore the possibility of semaglutide decreasing alcohol intake in patients with AUD, particularly those who are overweight,” said Prof. Holm.

“AUD is a heterogenous disorder, and one medication is most likely not helpful for all AUD patients,” she added. “Therefore, an arsenal of different medications is beneficial when treating AUD.”

Janice J. Hwang, MD, MHS, echoed these thoughts: “Anecdotally, there are a lot of reports from patients (and in the news) that this class of medication [GLP-1 agonists] impacts cravings and could impact addictive behaviors.”

“I would say, overall, the jury is still out,” as to whether anecdotal reports of GLP-1 agonists curbing addictions will be borne out in randomized controlled trials.

“I think it is much too early to tell” whether these drugs might be approved for treating addictions without more solid clinical trial data, noted Dr. Hwang, who is an associate professor of medicine and chief, division of endocrinology and metabolism, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, another research group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by psychiatrist Christian Hendershot, PhD, is conducting a clinical trial in 48 participants with AUD who are also smokers.

They aim to determine if patients who receive semaglutide at escalating doses (0.25 mg to 1.0 mg per week via subcutaneous injection) over 9 weeks will consume less alcohol (the primary outcome) and smoke less (a secondary outcome) than those who receive a sham placebo injection. Results are expected in October 2023.

Dr. Fink-Jensen has received an unrestricted research grant from Novo Nordisk to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on weight gain and metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic.

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

Could glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as semaglutide – approved as Ozempic to treat type 2 diabetes and as Wegovy to treat obesity, both from Novo Nordisk – also curb addictions and compulsive behaviors?

As demand for semaglutide for weight loss grew following approval of Wegovy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, anecdotal reports of unexpected potential added benefits also began to surface.

Some patients taking these drugs for type 2 diabetes or weight loss also lost interest in addictive and compulsive behaviors such as drinking alcohol, smoking, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking, as reported in articles in the New York Times and The Atlantic, among others.

There is also some preliminary research to support these observations.

This news organization invited three experts to weigh in.
 

Recent and upcoming studies

The senior author of a recent randomized controlled trial of 127 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), Anders Fink-Jensen, MD, said: “I hope that GLP-1 analogs in the future can be used against AUD, but before that can happen, several GLP-1 trials [are needed to] prove an effect on alcohol intake.”

His study involved patients who received exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon, AstraZeneca), the first-generation GLP-1 agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, over 26 weeks, but treatment did not reduce the number of heavy drinking days (the primary outcome), compared with placebo.  

However, in post hoc, exploratory analyses, heavy drinking days and total alcohol intake were significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with AUD and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²).

The participants were also shown pictures of alcohol or neutral subjects while they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging. Those who had received exenatide, compared with placebo, had significantly less activation of brain reward centers when shown the pictures of alcohol.

“Something is happening in the brain and activation of the reward center is hampered by the GLP-1 compound,” Dr. Fink-Jensen, a clinical psychologist at the Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, remarked in an email.

“If patients with AUD already fulfill the criteria for semaglutide (or other GLP-1 analogs) by having type 2 diabetes and/or a BMI over 30 kg/m², they can of course use the compound right now,” he noted.

His team is also beginning a study in patients with AUD and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² to investigate the effects on alcohol intake of semaglutide up to 2.4 mg weekly, the maximum dose currently approved for obesity in the United States.

“Based on the potency of exenatide and semaglutide,” Dr. Fink-Jensen said, “we expect that semaglutide will cause a stronger reduction in alcohol intake” than exenatide.

Animal studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists suppress alcohol-induced reward, alcohol intake, motivation to consume alcohol, alcohol seeking, and relapse drinking of alcohol, Elisabet Jerlhag Holm, PhD, noted.

Interestingly, these agents also suppress the reward, intake, and motivation to consume other addictive drugs like cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine, and some opioids, Jerlhag Holm, professor, department of pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted in an email.

In a recently published preclinical study, her group provides evidence to help explain anecdotal reports from patients with obesity treated with semaglutide who claim they also reduced their alcohol intake. In the study, semaglutide both reduced alcohol intake (and relapse-like drinking) and decreased body weight of rats of both sexes.

“Future research should explore the possibility of semaglutide decreasing alcohol intake in patients with AUD, particularly those who are overweight,” said Prof. Holm.

“AUD is a heterogenous disorder, and one medication is most likely not helpful for all AUD patients,” she added. “Therefore, an arsenal of different medications is beneficial when treating AUD.”

Janice J. Hwang, MD, MHS, echoed these thoughts: “Anecdotally, there are a lot of reports from patients (and in the news) that this class of medication [GLP-1 agonists] impacts cravings and could impact addictive behaviors.”

“I would say, overall, the jury is still out,” as to whether anecdotal reports of GLP-1 agonists curbing addictions will be borne out in randomized controlled trials.

“I think it is much too early to tell” whether these drugs might be approved for treating addictions without more solid clinical trial data, noted Dr. Hwang, who is an associate professor of medicine and chief, division of endocrinology and metabolism, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, another research group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by psychiatrist Christian Hendershot, PhD, is conducting a clinical trial in 48 participants with AUD who are also smokers.

They aim to determine if patients who receive semaglutide at escalating doses (0.25 mg to 1.0 mg per week via subcutaneous injection) over 9 weeks will consume less alcohol (the primary outcome) and smoke less (a secondary outcome) than those who receive a sham placebo injection. Results are expected in October 2023.

Dr. Fink-Jensen has received an unrestricted research grant from Novo Nordisk to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on weight gain and metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic.

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

Could glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists such as semaglutide – approved as Ozempic to treat type 2 diabetes and as Wegovy to treat obesity, both from Novo Nordisk – also curb addictions and compulsive behaviors?

As demand for semaglutide for weight loss grew following approval of Wegovy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, anecdotal reports of unexpected potential added benefits also began to surface.

Some patients taking these drugs for type 2 diabetes or weight loss also lost interest in addictive and compulsive behaviors such as drinking alcohol, smoking, shopping, nail biting, and skin picking, as reported in articles in the New York Times and The Atlantic, among others.

There is also some preliminary research to support these observations.

This news organization invited three experts to weigh in.
 

Recent and upcoming studies

The senior author of a recent randomized controlled trial of 127 patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), Anders Fink-Jensen, MD, said: “I hope that GLP-1 analogs in the future can be used against AUD, but before that can happen, several GLP-1 trials [are needed to] prove an effect on alcohol intake.”

His study involved patients who received exenatide (Byetta, Bydureon, AstraZeneca), the first-generation GLP-1 agonist approved for type 2 diabetes, over 26 weeks, but treatment did not reduce the number of heavy drinking days (the primary outcome), compared with placebo.  

However, in post hoc, exploratory analyses, heavy drinking days and total alcohol intake were significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with AUD and obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²).

The participants were also shown pictures of alcohol or neutral subjects while they underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging. Those who had received exenatide, compared with placebo, had significantly less activation of brain reward centers when shown the pictures of alcohol.

“Something is happening in the brain and activation of the reward center is hampered by the GLP-1 compound,” Dr. Fink-Jensen, a clinical psychologist at the Psychiatric Centre Copenhagen, remarked in an email.

“If patients with AUD already fulfill the criteria for semaglutide (or other GLP-1 analogs) by having type 2 diabetes and/or a BMI over 30 kg/m², they can of course use the compound right now,” he noted.

His team is also beginning a study in patients with AUD and a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² to investigate the effects on alcohol intake of semaglutide up to 2.4 mg weekly, the maximum dose currently approved for obesity in the United States.

“Based on the potency of exenatide and semaglutide,” Dr. Fink-Jensen said, “we expect that semaglutide will cause a stronger reduction in alcohol intake” than exenatide.

Animal studies have also shown that GLP-1 agonists suppress alcohol-induced reward, alcohol intake, motivation to consume alcohol, alcohol seeking, and relapse drinking of alcohol, Elisabet Jerlhag Holm, PhD, noted.

Interestingly, these agents also suppress the reward, intake, and motivation to consume other addictive drugs like cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine, and some opioids, Jerlhag Holm, professor, department of pharmacology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, noted in an email.

In a recently published preclinical study, her group provides evidence to help explain anecdotal reports from patients with obesity treated with semaglutide who claim they also reduced their alcohol intake. In the study, semaglutide both reduced alcohol intake (and relapse-like drinking) and decreased body weight of rats of both sexes.

“Future research should explore the possibility of semaglutide decreasing alcohol intake in patients with AUD, particularly those who are overweight,” said Prof. Holm.

“AUD is a heterogenous disorder, and one medication is most likely not helpful for all AUD patients,” she added. “Therefore, an arsenal of different medications is beneficial when treating AUD.”

Janice J. Hwang, MD, MHS, echoed these thoughts: “Anecdotally, there are a lot of reports from patients (and in the news) that this class of medication [GLP-1 agonists] impacts cravings and could impact addictive behaviors.”

“I would say, overall, the jury is still out,” as to whether anecdotal reports of GLP-1 agonists curbing addictions will be borne out in randomized controlled trials.

“I think it is much too early to tell” whether these drugs might be approved for treating addictions without more solid clinical trial data, noted Dr. Hwang, who is an associate professor of medicine and chief, division of endocrinology and metabolism, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, another research group at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by psychiatrist Christian Hendershot, PhD, is conducting a clinical trial in 48 participants with AUD who are also smokers.

They aim to determine if patients who receive semaglutide at escalating doses (0.25 mg to 1.0 mg per week via subcutaneous injection) over 9 weeks will consume less alcohol (the primary outcome) and smoke less (a secondary outcome) than those who receive a sham placebo injection. Results are expected in October 2023.

Dr. Fink-Jensen has received an unrestricted research grant from Novo Nordisk to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on weight gain and metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

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