Rheumatology News

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with fibromyalgia who received low-dose naltrexone showed no significant improvement in pain at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo in a randomized trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomly assigned 99 women with fibromyalgia at a single center in Denmark to a daily dose of 6 mg of naltrexone or a placebo for 12 weeks.
• The primary outcome was within-group change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR); outcomes were measured at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
• Secondary outcomes included the global impact of FIQR total scores, as well as FIQR scores for tenderness, fatigue, , , anxiety, memory, stiffness, and physical function.

TAKEAWAY:

• The patients ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 50.6 years, and all but one was White.
• At 12 weeks, the mean change in pain intensity was greater in the naltrexone group compared with the placebo group (−1.3 points vs −0.9 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
• Of the secondary outcomes, only memory problems related to fibromyalgia showed significant improvement with naltrexone compared with placebo (−0.93 vs −0.30; P = .004), although the significance was lost after adjusting for multiplicity.
• Adverse events were infrequent and similar between the groups; four of 49 patients in the naltrexone group and three of 50 in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatments because of side effects, and no safety concerns appeared related to the 6-mg dose.

IN PRACTICE:

“At this time we recommend that off-label treatment of patients who have responded to low-dose naltrexone should not be terminated, but we recommend against initiating low-dose naltrexone for low-dose naltrexone-naive patients with fibromyalgia pending the results of additional adequately powered studies with distinctive inflammatory and autoantibody patient profiles,” Winfried Häuser, MD, of the Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany, and Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, MD, of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Karin Due Bruun, MD, of Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The full study and accompanying editorial were published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was only powered to detect a difference of 1.0 NRS points for pain intensity; other limitations include the homogenous population that prevents generalizability to other groups and the relatively short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen’s Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with fibromyalgia who received low-dose naltrexone showed no significant improvement in pain at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo in a randomized trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomly assigned 99 women with fibromyalgia at a single center in Denmark to a daily dose of 6 mg of naltrexone or a placebo for 12 weeks.
• The primary outcome was within-group change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR); outcomes were measured at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
• Secondary outcomes included the global impact of FIQR total scores, as well as FIQR scores for tenderness, fatigue, , , anxiety, memory, stiffness, and physical function.

TAKEAWAY:

• The patients ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 50.6 years, and all but one was White.
• At 12 weeks, the mean change in pain intensity was greater in the naltrexone group compared with the placebo group (−1.3 points vs −0.9 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
• Of the secondary outcomes, only memory problems related to fibromyalgia showed significant improvement with naltrexone compared with placebo (−0.93 vs −0.30; P = .004), although the significance was lost after adjusting for multiplicity.
• Adverse events were infrequent and similar between the groups; four of 49 patients in the naltrexone group and three of 50 in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatments because of side effects, and no safety concerns appeared related to the 6-mg dose.

IN PRACTICE:

“At this time we recommend that off-label treatment of patients who have responded to low-dose naltrexone should not be terminated, but we recommend against initiating low-dose naltrexone for low-dose naltrexone-naive patients with fibromyalgia pending the results of additional adequately powered studies with distinctive inflammatory and autoantibody patient profiles,” Winfried Häuser, MD, of the Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany, and Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, MD, of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Karin Due Bruun, MD, of Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The full study and accompanying editorial were published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was only powered to detect a difference of 1.0 NRS points for pain intensity; other limitations include the homogenous population that prevents generalizability to other groups and the relatively short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen’s Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with fibromyalgia who received low-dose naltrexone showed no significant improvement in pain at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo in a randomized trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers randomly assigned 99 women with fibromyalgia at a single center in Denmark to a daily dose of 6 mg of naltrexone or a placebo for 12 weeks.
• The primary outcome was within-group change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks, measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised (FIQR); outcomes were measured at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
• Secondary outcomes included the global impact of FIQR total scores, as well as FIQR scores for tenderness, fatigue, , , anxiety, memory, stiffness, and physical function.

TAKEAWAY:

• The patients ranged in age from 18 to 64 years, with a mean age of 50.6 years, and all but one was White.
• At 12 weeks, the mean change in pain intensity was greater in the naltrexone group compared with the placebo group (−1.3 points vs −0.9 points, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
• Of the secondary outcomes, only memory problems related to fibromyalgia showed significant improvement with naltrexone compared with placebo (−0.93 vs −0.30; P = .004), although the significance was lost after adjusting for multiplicity.
• Adverse events were infrequent and similar between the groups; four of 49 patients in the naltrexone group and three of 50 in the placebo group discontinued their assigned treatments because of side effects, and no safety concerns appeared related to the 6-mg dose.

IN PRACTICE:

“At this time we recommend that off-label treatment of patients who have responded to low-dose naltrexone should not be terminated, but we recommend against initiating low-dose naltrexone for low-dose naltrexone-naive patients with fibromyalgia pending the results of additional adequately powered studies with distinctive inflammatory and autoantibody patient profiles,” Winfried Häuser, MD, of the Center for Pain Medicine and Mental Health, Saarbrücken, Germany, and Mary-Ann Fitzcharles, MD, of McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Karin Due Bruun, MD, of Odense University Hospital, Denmark. The full study and accompanying editorial were published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was only powered to detect a difference of 1.0 NRS points for pain intensity; other limitations include the homogenous population that prevents generalizability to other groups and the relatively short follow-up period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, Odense University Hospital, Danielsen’s Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People who are extroverted and conscientious and have a positive outlook may be at lower dementia risk, whereas those who score highly for neuroticism and have a negative outlook may be at increased risk, new research suggests. 

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers examined the link between the “big five” personality traits (conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and life satisfaction) and clinical symptoms of dementia (cognitive test performance) and neuropathology at autopsy. 
• Data for the meta-analysis came from eight longitudinal studies with 44,531 adults (aged 49-81 years at baseline; 26%-61% women) followed for up to 21 years, during which 1703 incident cases of dementia occurred. 
• Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and subjective well-being differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathologic characteristics of dementia. 

TAKEAWAY:

• High neuroticism, negative affect, and low conscientiousness were risk factors for dementia, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were protective.
• Across all analyses, there was directional consistency in estimates across samples, which is noteworthy given between-study differences in sociodemographic and design characteristics. 
• No consistent associations were found between psychological factors and neuropathology. 
• However, individuals higher in conscientiousness who did not receive a clinical diagnosis tended to have a lower Braak stage at autopsy, suggesting the possibility that conscientiousness is related to cognitive resilience. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These results replicate and extend evidence that personality traits may assist in early identification and dementia-care planning strategies, as well as risk stratification for dementia diagnosis. Moreover, our findings provide further support for recommendations to incorporate psychological trait measures into clinical screening or diagnosis criteria,” the authors write. SOURCE:

The study, with first author Emorie Beck, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, was published online on November 29, 2023, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 LIMITATIONS:

Access to autopsy data was limited. The findings may not generalize across racial groups. The analysis did not examine dynamic associations between changing personality and cognition and neuropathology over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

SAN DIEGO — CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which has transformed the treatment landscape for B-cell malignancies, is now showing great promise in at least three distinct autoantibody-dependent autoimmune diseases.

A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.

The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”

Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. 

Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.” 

All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said. 

The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 10⁶ CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies. 

The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.

After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs. 

Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency. 

However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment. 

During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers. 

Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.

“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.

For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.

Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which has transformed the treatment landscape for B-cell malignancies, is now showing great promise in at least three distinct autoantibody-dependent autoimmune diseases.

A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.

The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”

Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. 

Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.” 

All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said. 

The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 10⁶ CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies. 

The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.

After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs. 

Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency. 

However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment. 

During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers. 

Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.

“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.

For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.

Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which has transformed the treatment landscape for B-cell malignancies, is now showing great promise in at least three distinct autoantibody-dependent autoimmune diseases.

A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.

The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”

Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. 

Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.” 

All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said. 

The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 10⁶ CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies. 

The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.

After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs. 

Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency. 

However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment. 

During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers. 

Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.

“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.

For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.

Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with bimekizumab significantly improved symptoms in adults with palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, in a case series of 21 individuals.

PPP is a type of pustular psoriasis that remains a treatment challenge, and available treatments for palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules also “remain unsatisfactory,” according to Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of the dermatology service at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France), and colleagues. Bimekizumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A and anti-IL-17F antibody therapy, has been used for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but its effectiveness for PPP has not been studied, they said. In the United States, bimekizumab (Bimzelx), administered subcutaneously, was recently approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults; in the European Union, it is approved for treating psoriasis, in addition to psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

In the case series published in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Passeron and coinvestigators identified 11 adults with PPP and 10 with palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules who were treated at one of seven tertiary dermatology centers in France from September 2022 through June 2023. PPP also has been associated with bone and joint inflammation in SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis) syndrome.

All patients received bimekizumab for at least 3 months. The patients — 19 women and 2 men — ranged in age from 24 to 68 years (mean age, 46 years). The primary outcome was complete clearance, defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0.

A total of 17 patients achieved an IGA score of zero in 1-4 months. Over 3-6 months, three patients achieved an IGA score of 1 (almost clear), and one patient achieved an IGA score of 2 (mild).

Three patients with PPP also had acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau; in these patients, nail involvement improved by 50%-70% after 4-6 months of bimekizumab use. Two patients with SAPHO experienced complete clearance of skin lesions associated with improvement in joint pain.

Four patients developed oral and genital candidiasis during treatment, but all were treated successfully with antifungals. None of the patients discontinued bimekizumab because of adverse events. “All patients are still receiving treatment, and their psoriatic lesions remain controlled,” the authors wrote.

“The rapid and consistent improvement observed in the present case series supports the effectiveness of bimekizumab therapy in managing PPP, palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, and SAPHO syndrome,” they said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and short follow-up period, and by the inclusion of only patients with severe disease; and prospective, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that bimekizumab could be a treatment approach for PPP, palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, and SAPHO syndrome, and warrant a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to confirm the findings, they concluded.

Dr. Passeron disclosed fees from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calypso, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roivant Sciences, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and VYNE Therapeutics outside the current study; he is a cofounder of Yukin Therapeutics. Three authors disclosed receiving personal fees from UCB, manufacturer of bimekizumab, outside of the submitted work, another author disclosed receiving personal fees from UCB during the conduct of the study, and another reported receiving grants from UCB and several other companies, outside the submitted work.

The study findings were also presented at a meeting, Les Journées Dermatologiques de Paris 2023, on December 6, in Paris.

Treatment with bimekizumab significantly improved symptoms in adults with palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, in a case series of 21 individuals.

PPP is a type of pustular psoriasis that remains a treatment challenge, and available treatments for palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules also “remain unsatisfactory,” according to Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of the dermatology service at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France), and colleagues. Bimekizumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A and anti-IL-17F antibody therapy, has been used for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but its effectiveness for PPP has not been studied, they said. In the United States, bimekizumab (Bimzelx), administered subcutaneously, was recently approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults; in the European Union, it is approved for treating psoriasis, in addition to psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

In the case series published in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Passeron and coinvestigators identified 11 adults with PPP and 10 with palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules who were treated at one of seven tertiary dermatology centers in France from September 2022 through June 2023. PPP also has been associated with bone and joint inflammation in SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis) syndrome.

All patients received bimekizumab for at least 3 months. The patients — 19 women and 2 men — ranged in age from 24 to 68 years (mean age, 46 years). The primary outcome was complete clearance, defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0.

A total of 17 patients achieved an IGA score of zero in 1-4 months. Over 3-6 months, three patients achieved an IGA score of 1 (almost clear), and one patient achieved an IGA score of 2 (mild).

Three patients with PPP also had acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau; in these patients, nail involvement improved by 50%-70% after 4-6 months of bimekizumab use. Two patients with SAPHO experienced complete clearance of skin lesions associated with improvement in joint pain.

Four patients developed oral and genital candidiasis during treatment, but all were treated successfully with antifungals. None of the patients discontinued bimekizumab because of adverse events. “All patients are still receiving treatment, and their psoriatic lesions remain controlled,” the authors wrote.

“The rapid and consistent improvement observed in the present case series supports the effectiveness of bimekizumab therapy in managing PPP, palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, and SAPHO syndrome,” they said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and short follow-up period, and by the inclusion of only patients with severe disease; and prospective, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that bimekizumab could be a treatment approach for PPP, palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, and SAPHO syndrome, and warrant a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to confirm the findings, they concluded.

Dr. Passeron disclosed fees from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calypso, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roivant Sciences, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and VYNE Therapeutics outside the current study; he is a cofounder of Yukin Therapeutics. Three authors disclosed receiving personal fees from UCB, manufacturer of bimekizumab, outside of the submitted work, another author disclosed receiving personal fees from UCB during the conduct of the study, and another reported receiving grants from UCB and several other companies, outside the submitted work.

The study findings were also presented at a meeting, Les Journées Dermatologiques de Paris 2023, on December 6, in Paris.

Treatment with bimekizumab significantly improved symptoms in adults with palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, in a case series of 21 individuals.

PPP is a type of pustular psoriasis that remains a treatment challenge, and available treatments for palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules also “remain unsatisfactory,” according to Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of the dermatology service at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France), and colleagues. Bimekizumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A and anti-IL-17F antibody therapy, has been used for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but its effectiveness for PPP has not been studied, they said. In the United States, bimekizumab (Bimzelx), administered subcutaneously, was recently approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults; in the European Union, it is approved for treating psoriasis, in addition to psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

In the case series published in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Passeron and coinvestigators identified 11 adults with PPP and 10 with palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules who were treated at one of seven tertiary dermatology centers in France from September 2022 through June 2023. PPP also has been associated with bone and joint inflammation in SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis) syndrome.

All patients received bimekizumab for at least 3 months. The patients — 19 women and 2 men — ranged in age from 24 to 68 years (mean age, 46 years). The primary outcome was complete clearance, defined as an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0.

A total of 17 patients achieved an IGA score of zero in 1-4 months. Over 3-6 months, three patients achieved an IGA score of 1 (almost clear), and one patient achieved an IGA score of 2 (mild).

Three patients with PPP also had acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau; in these patients, nail involvement improved by 50%-70% after 4-6 months of bimekizumab use. Two patients with SAPHO experienced complete clearance of skin lesions associated with improvement in joint pain.

Four patients developed oral and genital candidiasis during treatment, but all were treated successfully with antifungals. None of the patients discontinued bimekizumab because of adverse events. “All patients are still receiving treatment, and their psoriatic lesions remain controlled,” the authors wrote.

“The rapid and consistent improvement observed in the present case series supports the effectiveness of bimekizumab therapy in managing PPP, palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, and SAPHO syndrome,” they said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and short follow-up period, and by the inclusion of only patients with severe disease; and prospective, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that bimekizumab could be a treatment approach for PPP, palmoplantar plaque psoriasis with pustules, and SAPHO syndrome, and warrant a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to confirm the findings, they concluded.

Dr. Passeron disclosed fees from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calypso, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roivant Sciences, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and VYNE Therapeutics outside the current study; he is a cofounder of Yukin Therapeutics. Three authors disclosed receiving personal fees from UCB, manufacturer of bimekizumab, outside of the submitted work, another author disclosed receiving personal fees from UCB during the conduct of the study, and another reported receiving grants from UCB and several other companies, outside the submitted work.

The study findings were also presented at a meeting, Les Journées Dermatologiques de Paris 2023, on December 6, in Paris.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with a healthy omnivore diet, a healthy vegan diet led to significant improvement in  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as fasting insulin and weight loss in a randomized controlled trial of identical twins. 

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers randomly assigned 22 pairs of healthy adult identical twins (34 women, mean age 39 years, mean body mass index 25.9) to a healthy vegan or omnivore diet (1 twin per pair) for 8 weeks.
• For the first 4 weeks, diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service. For the final 4 weeks, participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals/snacks.
• The primary outcome was change in LDL-C; secondary outcomes included changes in body weight and fasting insulin. 

TAKEAWAY:

• After 8 weeks, twins eating a vegan diet showed a significant mean decrease of 13.9 mg/dL in LDL-C compared with twins eating an omnivorous diet.
• The vegan diet also led to a significant mean decrease of 2.9 Times New RomanμIU/mL in fasting insulin and 1.9 kg in body weight after 8 weeks compared with the omnivore diet, although weight loss was observed in both diet groups. 
• The vegan diet group also had a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting HDL-C  triglycerides , vitamin B12, glucose, and trimethylamine N-oxide levels at 8 weeks.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits,” the researchers concluded. 

SOURCE: 

The study, with first author Matthew J. Landry, PhD, RDN, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online November 30 in  JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The adult twin population was generally healthy and findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The sample size was small, and the duration of intervention was short and there was no follow-up period, which limits insights on stability and sustainability of the diets. 

DISCLOSURES: 

Funding was provided by the Vogt Foundation, and grants from Stanford University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Landry has no relevant disclosures. One author reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside of this study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with a healthy omnivore diet, a healthy vegan diet led to significant improvement in  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as fasting insulin and weight loss in a randomized controlled trial of identical twins. 

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers randomly assigned 22 pairs of healthy adult identical twins (34 women, mean age 39 years, mean body mass index 25.9) to a healthy vegan or omnivore diet (1 twin per pair) for 8 weeks.
• For the first 4 weeks, diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service. For the final 4 weeks, participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals/snacks.
• The primary outcome was change in LDL-C; secondary outcomes included changes in body weight and fasting insulin. 

TAKEAWAY:

• After 8 weeks, twins eating a vegan diet showed a significant mean decrease of 13.9 mg/dL in LDL-C compared with twins eating an omnivorous diet.
• The vegan diet also led to a significant mean decrease of 2.9 Times New RomanμIU/mL in fasting insulin and 1.9 kg in body weight after 8 weeks compared with the omnivore diet, although weight loss was observed in both diet groups. 
• The vegan diet group also had a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting HDL-C  triglycerides , vitamin B12, glucose, and trimethylamine N-oxide levels at 8 weeks.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits,” the researchers concluded. 

SOURCE: 

The study, with first author Matthew J. Landry, PhD, RDN, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online November 30 in  JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The adult twin population was generally healthy and findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The sample size was small, and the duration of intervention was short and there was no follow-up period, which limits insights on stability and sustainability of the diets. 

DISCLOSURES: 

Funding was provided by the Vogt Foundation, and grants from Stanford University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Landry has no relevant disclosures. One author reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside of this study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with a healthy omnivore diet, a healthy vegan diet led to significant improvement in  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as fasting insulin and weight loss in a randomized controlled trial of identical twins. 

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers randomly assigned 22 pairs of healthy adult identical twins (34 women, mean age 39 years, mean body mass index 25.9) to a healthy vegan or omnivore diet (1 twin per pair) for 8 weeks.
• For the first 4 weeks, diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service. For the final 4 weeks, participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals/snacks.
• The primary outcome was change in LDL-C; secondary outcomes included changes in body weight and fasting insulin. 

TAKEAWAY:

• After 8 weeks, twins eating a vegan diet showed a significant mean decrease of 13.9 mg/dL in LDL-C compared with twins eating an omnivorous diet.
• The vegan diet also led to a significant mean decrease of 2.9 Times New RomanμIU/mL in fasting insulin and 1.9 kg in body weight after 8 weeks compared with the omnivore diet, although weight loss was observed in both diet groups. 
• The vegan diet group also had a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting HDL-C  triglycerides , vitamin B12, glucose, and trimethylamine N-oxide levels at 8 weeks.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits,” the researchers concluded. 

SOURCE: 

The study, with first author Matthew J. Landry, PhD, RDN, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online November 30 in  JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The adult twin population was generally healthy and findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The sample size was small, and the duration of intervention was short and there was no follow-up period, which limits insights on stability and sustainability of the diets. 

DISCLOSURES: 

Funding was provided by the Vogt Foundation, and grants from Stanford University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Landry has no relevant disclosures. One author reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside of this study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Much of my research focuses on what is known as clinical decision support — prompts and messages to providers to help them make good decisions for their patients. I know that these things can be annoying, which is exactly why I study them — to figure out which ones actually help.

When I got started on this about 10 years ago, we were learning a lot about how best to message providers about their patients. My team had developed a simple alert for acute kidney injury (AKI). We knew that providers often missed the diagnosis, so maybe letting them know would improve patient outcomes.

As we tested the alert, we got feedback, and I have kept an email from an ICU doctor from those early days. It read:

Dear Dr. Wilson: Thank you for the automated alert informing me that my patient had AKI. Regrettably, the alert fired about an hour after the patient had died. I feel that the information is less than actionable at this time.

Our early system had neglected to add a conditional flag ensuring that the patient was still alive at the time it sent the alert message. A small oversight, but one that had very large implications. Future studies would show that “false positive” alerts like this seriously degrade physician confidence in the system. And why wouldn’t they?

Knowing whether a patient is alive or dead seems like it should be trivial. But, as it turns out, in our modern balkanized health care system, it can be quite difficult. Not knowing the vital status of a patient can have major consequences.

Health systems send messages to their patients all the time: reminders of appointments, reminders for preventive care, reminders for vaccinations, and so on.

But what if the patient being reminded has died? It’s a waste of resources, of course, but more than that, it can be painful for their families and reflects poorly on the health care system. Of all the people who should know whether someone is alive or dead, shouldn’t their doctor be at the top of the list?

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine quantifies this very phenomenon.

Researchers examined 11,658 primary care patients in their health system who met the criteria of being “seriously ill” and followed them for 2 years. During that period of time, 25% were recorded as deceased in the electronic health record. But 30.8% had died. That left 676 patients who had died, but were not known to have died, left in the system.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Much of my research focuses on what is known as clinical decision support — prompts and messages to providers to help them make good decisions for their patients. I know that these things can be annoying, which is exactly why I study them — to figure out which ones actually help.

When I got started on this about 10 years ago, we were learning a lot about how best to message providers about their patients. My team had developed a simple alert for acute kidney injury (AKI). We knew that providers often missed the diagnosis, so maybe letting them know would improve patient outcomes.

As we tested the alert, we got feedback, and I have kept an email from an ICU doctor from those early days. It read:

Dear Dr. Wilson: Thank you for the automated alert informing me that my patient had AKI. Regrettably, the alert fired about an hour after the patient had died. I feel that the information is less than actionable at this time.

Our early system had neglected to add a conditional flag ensuring that the patient was still alive at the time it sent the alert message. A small oversight, but one that had very large implications. Future studies would show that “false positive” alerts like this seriously degrade physician confidence in the system. And why wouldn’t they?

Knowing whether a patient is alive or dead seems like it should be trivial. But, as it turns out, in our modern balkanized health care system, it can be quite difficult. Not knowing the vital status of a patient can have major consequences.

Health systems send messages to their patients all the time: reminders of appointments, reminders for preventive care, reminders for vaccinations, and so on.

But what if the patient being reminded has died? It’s a waste of resources, of course, but more than that, it can be painful for their families and reflects poorly on the health care system. Of all the people who should know whether someone is alive or dead, shouldn’t their doctor be at the top of the list?

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine quantifies this very phenomenon.

Researchers examined 11,658 primary care patients in their health system who met the criteria of being “seriously ill” and followed them for 2 years. During that period of time, 25% were recorded as deceased in the electronic health record. But 30.8% had died. That left 676 patients who had died, but were not known to have died, left in the system.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Much of my research focuses on what is known as clinical decision support — prompts and messages to providers to help them make good decisions for their patients. I know that these things can be annoying, which is exactly why I study them — to figure out which ones actually help.

When I got started on this about 10 years ago, we were learning a lot about how best to message providers about their patients. My team had developed a simple alert for acute kidney injury (AKI). We knew that providers often missed the diagnosis, so maybe letting them know would improve patient outcomes.

As we tested the alert, we got feedback, and I have kept an email from an ICU doctor from those early days. It read:

Dear Dr. Wilson: Thank you for the automated alert informing me that my patient had AKI. Regrettably, the alert fired about an hour after the patient had died. I feel that the information is less than actionable at this time.

Our early system had neglected to add a conditional flag ensuring that the patient was still alive at the time it sent the alert message. A small oversight, but one that had very large implications. Future studies would show that “false positive” alerts like this seriously degrade physician confidence in the system. And why wouldn’t they?

Knowing whether a patient is alive or dead seems like it should be trivial. But, as it turns out, in our modern balkanized health care system, it can be quite difficult. Not knowing the vital status of a patient can have major consequences.

Health systems send messages to their patients all the time: reminders of appointments, reminders for preventive care, reminders for vaccinations, and so on.

But what if the patient being reminded has died? It’s a waste of resources, of course, but more than that, it can be painful for their families and reflects poorly on the health care system. Of all the people who should know whether someone is alive or dead, shouldn’t their doctor be at the top of the list?

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine quantifies this very phenomenon.

Researchers examined 11,658 primary care patients in their health system who met the criteria of being “seriously ill” and followed them for 2 years. During that period of time, 25% were recorded as deceased in the electronic health record. But 30.8% had died. That left 676 patients who had died, but were not known to have died, left in the system.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For researchers involved with sleep disorders, developing a pharmacologic treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a bit like searching for the holy grail. P K Schweitzer and colleagues have published the results of the randomized MARIPOSA study assessing a combination of two medicinal products known as AD109, one of the products having an antimuscarinic effect (aroxybutynin), and the other a noradrenergic effect (atomoxetine), in treating this condition. These molecules increase the activity of the dilator muscles in the upper airways by activating the genioglossus muscle with a synergic effect on the upper respiratory tract during sleep.
 

MARIPOSA Methodology 

The trial included 209 patients, 176 of whom completed the 4-week protocol. The trial was double-blinded according to four parallel arms: participants in the first and second arms received AD109 containing doses of 2.5 mg/75 mg and 5 mg/75 mg of aroxybutynin and atomoxetine, respectively. The third arm received atomoxetine alone (75 mg), and the fourth arm was given a placebo. 

Two polysomnograms (PSGs) were carried out at the start and end of the trial, allowing researchers to calculate the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and to quantify nocturnal desaturation. The impact of these variables are now being deemed as the primary marker of the risk for cardiovascular complications secondary to OSA. Finally, questionnaires that evaluated excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and sleep quality were completed. 

The median age varied from 5 to 57 years, depending on the arm of the study, and body mass index varied between 31.2 and 34.5. Inclusion criteria comprised an AHI between 10 and 45 events per hour, of which, at least 75% were described as obstructive. Where continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was used (21%-30% of cases), it was abandoned during the trial (in a time frame that is perhaps too short to consider these patients as treatment naive).

 

Combination Brought Improvements 

After the 4 weeks of treatment, the AHI measured via follow-up PSG went from a median of 20.5 to 10.8 (in arm one and from 19.4 to 9.5  in arm two (P < .0001 vs placebo in these two arms). For participants in arm three, AHI went from 19.0 to 11.8 (P < .01 vs placebo). 

The rate of nocturnal desaturation (in percentage per hour) declined from -12.7 in arm one (P = .03), from -16.6 in arm two (P = .005), and from -5.2 in arm three (P = .003) compared with the placebo. The fatigue score was significantly improved by AD109 2.5 mg/75 mg. The use of atomoxetine alone slightly worsened the sleep disturbance score.

The main side effects were dry mouth sensation (which was markedly more common with AD109 5 mg/75 mg), difficulty passing urine in 7%-22% of cases, tachycardia in all trial arms, and increased diastolic blood pressure at the 2.5-mg/75-mg dose. The authors concluded that AD109, a combination of noradrenergic and antimuscarinic molecules, is effective in correcting mild to severe OSA. 

The 2.5-mg/75-mg dose was as effective as the 5-mg/75-mg dose. Atomoxetine alone is less effective, has more side effects, and is associated with lower quality sleep. Finally, it is reported that compliance with oral treatment was not checked, yet the argument of patient noncompliance with CPAP is largely used by the authors in their presentation of their study. A phase 3 trial is underway. 

Nevertheless, these results herald important scientific benefits if we consider that Colin Sullivan’s original 1981 research paper, which ushered in the CPAP era, presented the results of just five participants. 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For researchers involved with sleep disorders, developing a pharmacologic treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a bit like searching for the holy grail. P K Schweitzer and colleagues have published the results of the randomized MARIPOSA study assessing a combination of two medicinal products known as AD109, one of the products having an antimuscarinic effect (aroxybutynin), and the other a noradrenergic effect (atomoxetine), in treating this condition. These molecules increase the activity of the dilator muscles in the upper airways by activating the genioglossus muscle with a synergic effect on the upper respiratory tract during sleep.
 

MARIPOSA Methodology 

The trial included 209 patients, 176 of whom completed the 4-week protocol. The trial was double-blinded according to four parallel arms: participants in the first and second arms received AD109 containing doses of 2.5 mg/75 mg and 5 mg/75 mg of aroxybutynin and atomoxetine, respectively. The third arm received atomoxetine alone (75 mg), and the fourth arm was given a placebo. 

Two polysomnograms (PSGs) were carried out at the start and end of the trial, allowing researchers to calculate the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and to quantify nocturnal desaturation. The impact of these variables are now being deemed as the primary marker of the risk for cardiovascular complications secondary to OSA. Finally, questionnaires that evaluated excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and sleep quality were completed. 

The median age varied from 5 to 57 years, depending on the arm of the study, and body mass index varied between 31.2 and 34.5. Inclusion criteria comprised an AHI between 10 and 45 events per hour, of which, at least 75% were described as obstructive. Where continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was used (21%-30% of cases), it was abandoned during the trial (in a time frame that is perhaps too short to consider these patients as treatment naive).

 

Combination Brought Improvements 

After the 4 weeks of treatment, the AHI measured via follow-up PSG went from a median of 20.5 to 10.8 (in arm one and from 19.4 to 9.5  in arm two (P < .0001 vs placebo in these two arms). For participants in arm three, AHI went from 19.0 to 11.8 (P < .01 vs placebo). 

The rate of nocturnal desaturation (in percentage per hour) declined from -12.7 in arm one (P = .03), from -16.6 in arm two (P = .005), and from -5.2 in arm three (P = .003) compared with the placebo. The fatigue score was significantly improved by AD109 2.5 mg/75 mg. The use of atomoxetine alone slightly worsened the sleep disturbance score.

The main side effects were dry mouth sensation (which was markedly more common with AD109 5 mg/75 mg), difficulty passing urine in 7%-22% of cases, tachycardia in all trial arms, and increased diastolic blood pressure at the 2.5-mg/75-mg dose. The authors concluded that AD109, a combination of noradrenergic and antimuscarinic molecules, is effective in correcting mild to severe OSA. 

The 2.5-mg/75-mg dose was as effective as the 5-mg/75-mg dose. Atomoxetine alone is less effective, has more side effects, and is associated with lower quality sleep. Finally, it is reported that compliance with oral treatment was not checked, yet the argument of patient noncompliance with CPAP is largely used by the authors in their presentation of their study. A phase 3 trial is underway. 

Nevertheless, these results herald important scientific benefits if we consider that Colin Sullivan’s original 1981 research paper, which ushered in the CPAP era, presented the results of just five participants. 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For researchers involved with sleep disorders, developing a pharmacologic treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a bit like searching for the holy grail. P K Schweitzer and colleagues have published the results of the randomized MARIPOSA study assessing a combination of two medicinal products known as AD109, one of the products having an antimuscarinic effect (aroxybutynin), and the other a noradrenergic effect (atomoxetine), in treating this condition. These molecules increase the activity of the dilator muscles in the upper airways by activating the genioglossus muscle with a synergic effect on the upper respiratory tract during sleep.
 

MARIPOSA Methodology 

The trial included 209 patients, 176 of whom completed the 4-week protocol. The trial was double-blinded according to four parallel arms: participants in the first and second arms received AD109 containing doses of 2.5 mg/75 mg and 5 mg/75 mg of aroxybutynin and atomoxetine, respectively. The third arm received atomoxetine alone (75 mg), and the fourth arm was given a placebo. 

Two polysomnograms (PSGs) were carried out at the start and end of the trial, allowing researchers to calculate the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and to quantify nocturnal desaturation. The impact of these variables are now being deemed as the primary marker of the risk for cardiovascular complications secondary to OSA. Finally, questionnaires that evaluated excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and sleep quality were completed. 

The median age varied from 5 to 57 years, depending on the arm of the study, and body mass index varied between 31.2 and 34.5. Inclusion criteria comprised an AHI between 10 and 45 events per hour, of which, at least 75% were described as obstructive. Where continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was used (21%-30% of cases), it was abandoned during the trial (in a time frame that is perhaps too short to consider these patients as treatment naive).

 

Combination Brought Improvements 

After the 4 weeks of treatment, the AHI measured via follow-up PSG went from a median of 20.5 to 10.8 (in arm one and from 19.4 to 9.5  in arm two (P < .0001 vs placebo in these two arms). For participants in arm three, AHI went from 19.0 to 11.8 (P < .01 vs placebo). 

The rate of nocturnal desaturation (in percentage per hour) declined from -12.7 in arm one (P = .03), from -16.6 in arm two (P = .005), and from -5.2 in arm three (P = .003) compared with the placebo. The fatigue score was significantly improved by AD109 2.5 mg/75 mg. The use of atomoxetine alone slightly worsened the sleep disturbance score.

The main side effects were dry mouth sensation (which was markedly more common with AD109 5 mg/75 mg), difficulty passing urine in 7%-22% of cases, tachycardia in all trial arms, and increased diastolic blood pressure at the 2.5-mg/75-mg dose. The authors concluded that AD109, a combination of noradrenergic and antimuscarinic molecules, is effective in correcting mild to severe OSA. 

The 2.5-mg/75-mg dose was as effective as the 5-mg/75-mg dose. Atomoxetine alone is less effective, has more side effects, and is associated with lower quality sleep. Finally, it is reported that compliance with oral treatment was not checked, yet the argument of patient noncompliance with CPAP is largely used by the authors in their presentation of their study. A phase 3 trial is underway. 

Nevertheless, these results herald important scientific benefits if we consider that Colin Sullivan’s original 1981 research paper, which ushered in the CPAP era, presented the results of just five participants. 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.