Conference Coverage

The addition of dupilumab significantly reduced itching and hives, compared with placebo, in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) that was uncontrolled with H1-antihistamines, based on data from 151 individuals.

“Approximately 50% of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria do not respond to antihistamines,” said Thomas B. Casale, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview. Omalizumab, the only biologic approved for this condition, is not effective in all patients, and additional treatment options are needed, added Casale, the lead author who presented the new data, at the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13 pathways, is currently approved in the United States for the treatment of several allergy and dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis, severe asthma exacerbations, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and prurigo nodularis.

In the study, known as LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study C, researchers randomized 74 patients with CSU aged 6 years or older to add-on dupilumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks and 77 to placebo. (Patients were omalizumab-naive and had symptomatic CSU, despite treatment with up to four times the approved dose of standard-of-care H1-antihistamines.) Dupilumab doses were 300 mg for adults and adolescents weighing ≥ 60 kg or 200 mg for adolescents weighing < 60 kg and children weighing ≥ 30 kg.

The primary outcomes were Itch Severity Score over 7 days (ISS7; range, 0-21) and Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7; range, 0-42).

Over the 24-week study period, patients in the dupilumab group showed significantly greater change from baseline than those in the placebo group on both measures, with least squares mean changes of 8.6 vs 6.1 for ISS7 and 15.9 vs 11.2 for UAS7 (P = .02 for both).

In addition, at 24 weeks, significantly more patients in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group achieved well-controlled disease based on a UAS of 6 or lower (41% vs 23%; P = .005). Significantly more dupilumab-treated patients also achieved a complete response (defined as a UAS of 0), compared with placebo-treated patients (30% vs 18%; P = .02).

Overall rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 53% for both groups, and safety data were mainly consistent with dupilumab’s known safety profile, the researchers wrote.

The findings were not surprising, as a previous related study, LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, showed that dupilumab was effective for CSU, Casale told this news organization. “This replicate study confirms the previous study and provides evidence for regulatory approval.”

If approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “dupilumab will provide another therapeutic option for patients with chronic urticaria unresponsive to antihistamines,” Casale commented.

No new safety signals occurred, and the ability to self-administer the medication at home provides an advantage for patients, he added. As for additional research, “analysis of patient characteristics and potential biomarkers that would predict responsiveness is needed.”

 

More Research Needed to Fine-Tune Management

An unmet need persists for patients with CSU whose disease is not adequately controlled by higher-dose H1-antihistamines, Robert G. Micheletti, MD, associate professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It is important not only to identify effective add-on therapies for these patients but also to generate data to support insurance coverage and drug access,” said Micheletti, who was not involved in the study.

Also referring to the similar findings reported in the LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, Micheletti said, “as in the earlier study, the results demonstrate significantly reduced itch and urticaria in treated patients compared to placebo.”

“While many providers currently prescribe dupilumab off-label for refractory CSU, FDA approval would improve access to the drug for patients who need it and provide an alternative for patients who may not be good candidates for omalizumab,” he added. However, more research is needed to define optimal management of patients with CSU with inadequate response to omalizumab.

“The LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study B showed a small improvement in itch severity and urticaria activity among such patients receiving dupilumab,” he noted. “Future work should aim to identify biomarkers and other features predictive of response to various therapies.” 

Study B involved patients with CSU who were uncontrolled on standard-of-care antihistamines and refractory or intolerant to omalizumab, according to Regeneron. 

On November 15, after the ACAAI meeting had ended, the company announced that the FDA had accepted the resubmission of an application for approval of dupilumab for the treatment of CSU in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older not adequately controlled with H1-antihistamines.

The study was supported and sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Casale disclosed serving as a consultant for ALK, ARS Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bryn Pharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GSK, Jasper, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi and as a speaker for Genentech and Regeneron. Micheletti had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The addition of dupilumab significantly reduced itching and hives, compared with placebo, in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) that was uncontrolled with H1-antihistamines, based on data from 151 individuals.

“Approximately 50% of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria do not respond to antihistamines,” said Thomas B. Casale, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview. Omalizumab, the only biologic approved for this condition, is not effective in all patients, and additional treatment options are needed, added Casale, the lead author who presented the new data, at the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13 pathways, is currently approved in the United States for the treatment of several allergy and dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis, severe asthma exacerbations, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and prurigo nodularis.

In the study, known as LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study C, researchers randomized 74 patients with CSU aged 6 years or older to add-on dupilumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks and 77 to placebo. (Patients were omalizumab-naive and had symptomatic CSU, despite treatment with up to four times the approved dose of standard-of-care H1-antihistamines.) Dupilumab doses were 300 mg for adults and adolescents weighing ≥ 60 kg or 200 mg for adolescents weighing < 60 kg and children weighing ≥ 30 kg.

The primary outcomes were Itch Severity Score over 7 days (ISS7; range, 0-21) and Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7; range, 0-42).

Over the 24-week study period, patients in the dupilumab group showed significantly greater change from baseline than those in the placebo group on both measures, with least squares mean changes of 8.6 vs 6.1 for ISS7 and 15.9 vs 11.2 for UAS7 (P = .02 for both).

In addition, at 24 weeks, significantly more patients in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group achieved well-controlled disease based on a UAS of 6 or lower (41% vs 23%; P = .005). Significantly more dupilumab-treated patients also achieved a complete response (defined as a UAS of 0), compared with placebo-treated patients (30% vs 18%; P = .02).

Overall rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 53% for both groups, and safety data were mainly consistent with dupilumab’s known safety profile, the researchers wrote.

The findings were not surprising, as a previous related study, LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, showed that dupilumab was effective for CSU, Casale told this news organization. “This replicate study confirms the previous study and provides evidence for regulatory approval.”

If approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “dupilumab will provide another therapeutic option for patients with chronic urticaria unresponsive to antihistamines,” Casale commented.

No new safety signals occurred, and the ability to self-administer the medication at home provides an advantage for patients, he added. As for additional research, “analysis of patient characteristics and potential biomarkers that would predict responsiveness is needed.”

 

More Research Needed to Fine-Tune Management

An unmet need persists for patients with CSU whose disease is not adequately controlled by higher-dose H1-antihistamines, Robert G. Micheletti, MD, associate professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It is important not only to identify effective add-on therapies for these patients but also to generate data to support insurance coverage and drug access,” said Micheletti, who was not involved in the study.

Also referring to the similar findings reported in the LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, Micheletti said, “as in the earlier study, the results demonstrate significantly reduced itch and urticaria in treated patients compared to placebo.”

“While many providers currently prescribe dupilumab off-label for refractory CSU, FDA approval would improve access to the drug for patients who need it and provide an alternative for patients who may not be good candidates for omalizumab,” he added. However, more research is needed to define optimal management of patients with CSU with inadequate response to omalizumab.

“The LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study B showed a small improvement in itch severity and urticaria activity among such patients receiving dupilumab,” he noted. “Future work should aim to identify biomarkers and other features predictive of response to various therapies.” 

Study B involved patients with CSU who were uncontrolled on standard-of-care antihistamines and refractory or intolerant to omalizumab, according to Regeneron. 

On November 15, after the ACAAI meeting had ended, the company announced that the FDA had accepted the resubmission of an application for approval of dupilumab for the treatment of CSU in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older not adequately controlled with H1-antihistamines.

The study was supported and sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Casale disclosed serving as a consultant for ALK, ARS Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bryn Pharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GSK, Jasper, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi and as a speaker for Genentech and Regeneron. Micheletti had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The addition of dupilumab significantly reduced itching and hives, compared with placebo, in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) that was uncontrolled with H1-antihistamines, based on data from 151 individuals.

“Approximately 50% of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria do not respond to antihistamines,” said Thomas B. Casale, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview. Omalizumab, the only biologic approved for this condition, is not effective in all patients, and additional treatment options are needed, added Casale, the lead author who presented the new data, at the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Dupilumab (Dupixent), a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13 pathways, is currently approved in the United States for the treatment of several allergy and dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis, severe asthma exacerbations, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and prurigo nodularis.

In the study, known as LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study C, researchers randomized 74 patients with CSU aged 6 years or older to add-on dupilumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks and 77 to placebo. (Patients were omalizumab-naive and had symptomatic CSU, despite treatment with up to four times the approved dose of standard-of-care H1-antihistamines.) Dupilumab doses were 300 mg for adults and adolescents weighing ≥ 60 kg or 200 mg for adolescents weighing < 60 kg and children weighing ≥ 30 kg.

The primary outcomes were Itch Severity Score over 7 days (ISS7; range, 0-21) and Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7; range, 0-42).

Over the 24-week study period, patients in the dupilumab group showed significantly greater change from baseline than those in the placebo group on both measures, with least squares mean changes of 8.6 vs 6.1 for ISS7 and 15.9 vs 11.2 for UAS7 (P = .02 for both).

In addition, at 24 weeks, significantly more patients in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group achieved well-controlled disease based on a UAS of 6 or lower (41% vs 23%; P = .005). Significantly more dupilumab-treated patients also achieved a complete response (defined as a UAS of 0), compared with placebo-treated patients (30% vs 18%; P = .02).

Overall rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 53% for both groups, and safety data were mainly consistent with dupilumab’s known safety profile, the researchers wrote.

The findings were not surprising, as a previous related study, LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, showed that dupilumab was effective for CSU, Casale told this news organization. “This replicate study confirms the previous study and provides evidence for regulatory approval.”

If approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “dupilumab will provide another therapeutic option for patients with chronic urticaria unresponsive to antihistamines,” Casale commented.

No new safety signals occurred, and the ability to self-administer the medication at home provides an advantage for patients, he added. As for additional research, “analysis of patient characteristics and potential biomarkers that would predict responsiveness is needed.”

 

More Research Needed to Fine-Tune Management

An unmet need persists for patients with CSU whose disease is not adequately controlled by higher-dose H1-antihistamines, Robert G. Micheletti, MD, associate professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It is important not only to identify effective add-on therapies for these patients but also to generate data to support insurance coverage and drug access,” said Micheletti, who was not involved in the study.

Also referring to the similar findings reported in the LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study A, Micheletti said, “as in the earlier study, the results demonstrate significantly reduced itch and urticaria in treated patients compared to placebo.”

“While many providers currently prescribe dupilumab off-label for refractory CSU, FDA approval would improve access to the drug for patients who need it and provide an alternative for patients who may not be good candidates for omalizumab,” he added. However, more research is needed to define optimal management of patients with CSU with inadequate response to omalizumab.

“The LIBERTY-CSU CUPID Study B showed a small improvement in itch severity and urticaria activity among such patients receiving dupilumab,” he noted. “Future work should aim to identify biomarkers and other features predictive of response to various therapies.” 

Study B involved patients with CSU who were uncontrolled on standard-of-care antihistamines and refractory or intolerant to omalizumab, according to Regeneron. 

On November 15, after the ACAAI meeting had ended, the company announced that the FDA had accepted the resubmission of an application for approval of dupilumab for the treatment of CSU in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older not adequately controlled with H1-antihistamines.

The study was supported and sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Casale disclosed serving as a consultant for ALK, ARS Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bryn Pharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GSK, Jasper, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi and as a speaker for Genentech and Regeneron. Micheletti had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

A simple, single-question hearing screening administered by medical assistants could effectively identify older adults with untreated hearing loss, according to a study presented at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, involved 49 participants aged between 56 and 90 years who attended a health clinic with a Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). Most of the participants who are in PACE are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

Medical assistants were trained to incorporate the following single-question hearing screener during health clinic appointments: “Do you have any difficulty with your hearing (without hearing aids)?” The screening offered a Likert-scale option of responses.

“A single-question hearing screener requires no equipment,” said study author Sara Mamo, AuD, PhD, and associate professor of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “It simply requires a systemic belief that addressing hearing loss matters.”

Following these screenings, the research team conducted on-site hearing threshold testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the method.

Mamo and her research team found that nearly three quarters of the participants had some degree of hearing loss, with 24 individuals showing mild hearing loss and 11 exhibiting moderate or worse hearing loss.

None of the participants were current users of hearing aids, which underscores the widespread issue of untreated hearing loss in older adults, according to Mamo.

“One benefit of screening by asking a question is that the patient who says ‘yes’ to having difficulty is more likely to accept support to address the difficulty,” said Mamo. “A medical provider asking about hearing loss is an important cue to action.”

The results showed a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 42.9%, suggesting that this simple screening can help identify individuals with untreated hearing loss during routine health visits.

Despite known links between age-related hearing loss and increased risks for dementia, depression, and loneliness, the US Preventive Services Task Force does not currently recommend routine hearing loss screening for adults.

“With minimal burden, we can identify individuals with untreated hearing loss during routine health appointments,” she said.

Carla Perissinotto, MD, MHS, professor in the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed.

“We do not screen enough for hearing loss,” said Perissinotto, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers also provide practical communication tips for healthcare providers working with patients with untreated hearing loss. These include speaking face-to-face, speaking slowly, and using personal sound amplifiers.

Perissinotto added that integrating an individual’s hearing status into their medical records could enhance overall care and any future communication strategies.

“Writing hearing status [into medical records] prominently could be very important, as I have had patients inappropriately labeled as having dementia when it was a hearing issue,” said Perissinotto.

Mamo and Perissinotto had no conflicts of interest.

 

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

A simple, single-question hearing screening administered by medical assistants could effectively identify older adults with untreated hearing loss, according to a study presented at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, involved 49 participants aged between 56 and 90 years who attended a health clinic with a Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). Most of the participants who are in PACE are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

Medical assistants were trained to incorporate the following single-question hearing screener during health clinic appointments: “Do you have any difficulty with your hearing (without hearing aids)?” The screening offered a Likert-scale option of responses.

“A single-question hearing screener requires no equipment,” said study author Sara Mamo, AuD, PhD, and associate professor of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “It simply requires a systemic belief that addressing hearing loss matters.”

Following these screenings, the research team conducted on-site hearing threshold testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the method.

Mamo and her research team found that nearly three quarters of the participants had some degree of hearing loss, with 24 individuals showing mild hearing loss and 11 exhibiting moderate or worse hearing loss.

None of the participants were current users of hearing aids, which underscores the widespread issue of untreated hearing loss in older adults, according to Mamo.

“One benefit of screening by asking a question is that the patient who says ‘yes’ to having difficulty is more likely to accept support to address the difficulty,” said Mamo. “A medical provider asking about hearing loss is an important cue to action.”

The results showed a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 42.9%, suggesting that this simple screening can help identify individuals with untreated hearing loss during routine health visits.

Despite known links between age-related hearing loss and increased risks for dementia, depression, and loneliness, the US Preventive Services Task Force does not currently recommend routine hearing loss screening for adults.

“With minimal burden, we can identify individuals with untreated hearing loss during routine health appointments,” she said.

Carla Perissinotto, MD, MHS, professor in the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed.

“We do not screen enough for hearing loss,” said Perissinotto, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers also provide practical communication tips for healthcare providers working with patients with untreated hearing loss. These include speaking face-to-face, speaking slowly, and using personal sound amplifiers.

Perissinotto added that integrating an individual’s hearing status into their medical records could enhance overall care and any future communication strategies.

“Writing hearing status [into medical records] prominently could be very important, as I have had patients inappropriately labeled as having dementia when it was a hearing issue,” said Perissinotto.

Mamo and Perissinotto had no conflicts of interest.

 

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

A simple, single-question hearing screening administered by medical assistants could effectively identify older adults with untreated hearing loss, according to a study presented at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, involved 49 participants aged between 56 and 90 years who attended a health clinic with a Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). Most of the participants who are in PACE are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

Medical assistants were trained to incorporate the following single-question hearing screener during health clinic appointments: “Do you have any difficulty with your hearing (without hearing aids)?” The screening offered a Likert-scale option of responses.

“A single-question hearing screener requires no equipment,” said study author Sara Mamo, AuD, PhD, and associate professor of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “It simply requires a systemic belief that addressing hearing loss matters.”

Following these screenings, the research team conducted on-site hearing threshold testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the method.

Mamo and her research team found that nearly three quarters of the participants had some degree of hearing loss, with 24 individuals showing mild hearing loss and 11 exhibiting moderate or worse hearing loss.

None of the participants were current users of hearing aids, which underscores the widespread issue of untreated hearing loss in older adults, according to Mamo.

“One benefit of screening by asking a question is that the patient who says ‘yes’ to having difficulty is more likely to accept support to address the difficulty,” said Mamo. “A medical provider asking about hearing loss is an important cue to action.”

The results showed a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 42.9%, suggesting that this simple screening can help identify individuals with untreated hearing loss during routine health visits.

Despite known links between age-related hearing loss and increased risks for dementia, depression, and loneliness, the US Preventive Services Task Force does not currently recommend routine hearing loss screening for adults.

“With minimal burden, we can identify individuals with untreated hearing loss during routine health appointments,” she said.

Carla Perissinotto, MD, MHS, professor in the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed.

“We do not screen enough for hearing loss,” said Perissinotto, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers also provide practical communication tips for healthcare providers working with patients with untreated hearing loss. These include speaking face-to-face, speaking slowly, and using personal sound amplifiers.

Perissinotto added that integrating an individual’s hearing status into their medical records could enhance overall care and any future communication strategies.

“Writing hearing status [into medical records] prominently could be very important, as I have had patients inappropriately labeled as having dementia when it was a hearing issue,” said Perissinotto.

Mamo and Perissinotto had no conflicts of interest.

 

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Oral semaglutide 25 mg appears to be just as effective in promoting weight loss and other beneficial outcomes as are the investigational 50-mg oral dose and the injectable 2.4-mg dose (Wegovy), in new research.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s OASIS 4 trial suggest that “oral semaglutide 25 mg may represent an efficacious option for the treatment of overweight and obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the Department of Nutrition Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week 2024 meeting.

In an interview, Garvey, who is also senior scientist at the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, added: “There’s a principle in medicine that you always use the lowest dose that has highest efficacy, and for oral semaglutide for obesity, that appears to be the 25-mg dose. We need oral medicines to offer as an option for patients that could lead to a longer persistence in adherence to obesity medications, which is a big problem. Less than half the people maintain their adherence after a year.”

Asked to comment, session moderator and obesity researcher Joseph A. Skelton, MD, professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, said that OASIS 4 was “extremely well done, especially given that we’re all concerned about the high prevalence of people stopping these medications at a year. ... I love the idea of trying to find these lower doses and increasing options for people.”

(The oral semaglutide approved for treating type 2 diabetes [Rybelsus] is sold in 7-mg and 14-mg doses.)

 

With Oral Semaglutide, Lower May Be Better

OASIS 4 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 64-week multicenter trial involving a total of 307 participants with overweight/obesity randomized 2:1 to oral semaglutide 25 mg or placebo. Of those, 167 in the semaglutide 25 mg and 76 in the placebo groups completed the trial.

For the co–primary endpoint change in body weight at week 64 (including 52-week maintenance and 7-week follow-up periods), there was a drop of 13.6% with oral semaglutide vs just 2.2% with placebo (P < .0001), based on in-trial observation regardless of adherence. For the analysis including just the on-treatment period, those reductions were 16.6% and 2.7%, respectively (P < .0001).

For the other co–primary endpoint, 79.2% semaglutide vs 31.1% placebo lost at least 5% of their body weight, 63.0% vs 14.4% lost ≥ 10%, 50.0% vs 5.6% lost ≥ 15%, and 29.7% vs 3.3% lost ≥ 20%. All were statistically significant differences, at P < .0001.

On the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version, change from baseline scores were 16.2 with oral semaglutide vs 8.4 for placebo (P = .0006) and the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful increases in those scores (≥ 14.6 points) were 55.3% vs 34.8% (P = .0022).

Waist circumference was also significantly reduced from baseline with oral semaglutide, by 12.2 cm vs 2.8 cm (P < .0001). Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure dropped more with semaglutide than placebo, but not significantly. However, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein dropped from baseline by 46.4% vs just 4.2% with placebo, a significant difference (P < .0001).

Hemoglobin A1c dropped by 0.29 percentage points vs just 0.06 with placebo (P = .0012) and fasting plasma glucose by 6.6 mg/dL, while rising by 0.4 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .0012). Lipid levels also improved more with oral semaglutide.

Overall adverse events occurred in 93.1% on oral semaglutide and 85.3% with placebo, and gastrointestinal adverse events in 74% and 42.2%, respectively. Other types of adverse events didn’t differ between the groups. The proportions experiencing severe adverse events were less in the semaglutide group (3.9% vs 8.8%), although adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation were slightly higher with oral semaglutide (6.9% vs 5.9%). There were no deaths.

The estimated treatment difference from placebo in body weight change of −11.4% in OASIS 4 (P < .0001) was similar to the –12.7% (P < .0001) seen with the 50-mg oral semaglutide dose studied in OASIS 1 and the –12.4% (P < .0001) difference with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg in the STEP 1 trial. “All had pretty comparable efficacy,” Garvey noted.

The side-effect profiles, including frequency of gastrointestinal side effects, were also similar across the three trials. However, Garvey added, “the mean duration of nausea in those patients that experienced nausea was shorter in patients on a 25-mg dose, 13 days, whereas the mean duration of nausea was greater, 19 days, in those in OASIS 1 taking 50 mg a day.”

Garvey has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Inogen, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharma; has ownership interest (stock, stock options in a publicly owned company) for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Isis, Lilly, and Novartis; serves as site principal investigator for Carmot Therapeutics/Roche, Eli Lilly, Epitomee Medical, Lilly, Neurovalens, Novo Nordisk, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals; and as a data monitoring committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Skelton is editor in chief of the journal Childhood Obesity.

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

SAN DIEGO — The prevalence of and number of deaths from alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are growing among people age 70 and older in the United States, according to the results of a new study.

Even as mortality rates decline globally, AUD deaths rose in the United States, increasing 1.63% per year between 2010 and 2019. Deaths from cirrhosis increased by 0.56% each year, and deaths from primary liver cancer associated with alcohol increased by 3.09% per year.

Several factors, such as an aging US population and increasing alcohol consumption, play a major role in the uptick in mortality, said lead author Pojsakorn Danpanichkul, MD, an internal medicine resident at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

“Healthcare providers should increase screening for alcohol use among older adults and consider the added risks of alcohol consumption. Public health strategies should target alcohol prevention and treatment programs tailored to older adults,” he said.

“Older adults are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of alcohol due to natural declines in liver function and metabolism, leading to a higher risk of liver disease and complications,” he explained. However, “little research has focused on this issue.”

 

Trends in US Not Seen Globally

Danpanichkul and colleagues analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2010-2019, calculating the annual percent change for the burden of AUD, ALD, and liver cancer from alcohol in patients age 70 and older. The research team then compared data in the United States to global estimates for these same diseases.

In 2019, there were 556,340 cases of AUD, 112,560 cases of ALD, and 3720 cases of liver cancer from alcohol in older adults in the United States. In addition, there were 1750 deaths attributed to AUD, 4860 deaths from ALD, and 3010 deaths caused by primary liver cancer from alcohol.

The age-standardized prevalence rates (ASPRs) per 100,000 people were 1547 cases of AUD, 313 cases of ALD, and 10 cases of primary liver cancer caused by alcohol.

The age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100,000 people were 4.88 for AUD, 13.52 for ALD, and 8.38 for primary liver cancer.

During the time period studied, upward trends occurred in the United States, with annual ASPRs increasing by 2.52% for AUD, 1.78% for ALD, and 3.31% for primary liver cancer due to alcohol. Globally, the trends were lower, with annual increases of 0.2% for AUD, 0.38% for ALD, and 0.67% for primary liver cancer from alcohol.

During the same time, ASDRs also increased in all three categories in the United States, while global trends showed a 0.91% decline in AUD deaths and 0.6% decline in ALD deaths. Liver cancer deaths, however, increased by 0.3% worldwide.

Targeted strategies are essential to reduce this growing health burden, especially in an aging population, Danpanichkul said. “These interventions should focus on early detection, intervention, and management for individuals at risk or already affected by ALD and AUD.”

Future studies should investigate alcohol consumption and mortality trends in other age groups, including by sex, location (such as state or territory), and race and ethnicity, he said. Data for more recent years would be compelling as well.

 

Increased Alcohol Use During and After Pandemic

Numerous studies have indicated that alcohol use increased in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained elevated since then. 

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, alcohol use per 100 people increased 2.69% in 2020 and 2.96% in 2022, as compared with 2018. Increases occurred across all subgroups, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and US region.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people stayed at home, watched the television, and increased their alcohol intake” — in the United States and also in Japan — said Hisanori Muto, MD, senior assistant professor of gastroenterology at Fujita Health University in Nagoya, Japan, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Although the global numbers may appear lower, we’re also seeing an increase in AUD and ALD in Japan, similar to the United States,” he said. “It’s very important to watch these trends and address these diseases.”

Danpanichkul and Muto reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The prevalence of and number of deaths from alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are growing among people age 70 and older in the United States, according to the results of a new study.

Even as mortality rates decline globally, AUD deaths rose in the United States, increasing 1.63% per year between 2010 and 2019. Deaths from cirrhosis increased by 0.56% each year, and deaths from primary liver cancer associated with alcohol increased by 3.09% per year.

Several factors, such as an aging US population and increasing alcohol consumption, play a major role in the uptick in mortality, said lead author Pojsakorn Danpanichkul, MD, an internal medicine resident at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

“Healthcare providers should increase screening for alcohol use among older adults and consider the added risks of alcohol consumption. Public health strategies should target alcohol prevention and treatment programs tailored to older adults,” he said.

“Older adults are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of alcohol due to natural declines in liver function and metabolism, leading to a higher risk of liver disease and complications,” he explained. However, “little research has focused on this issue.”

 

Trends in US Not Seen Globally

Danpanichkul and colleagues analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2010-2019, calculating the annual percent change for the burden of AUD, ALD, and liver cancer from alcohol in patients age 70 and older. The research team then compared data in the United States to global estimates for these same diseases.

In 2019, there were 556,340 cases of AUD, 112,560 cases of ALD, and 3720 cases of liver cancer from alcohol in older adults in the United States. In addition, there were 1750 deaths attributed to AUD, 4860 deaths from ALD, and 3010 deaths caused by primary liver cancer from alcohol.

The age-standardized prevalence rates (ASPRs) per 100,000 people were 1547 cases of AUD, 313 cases of ALD, and 10 cases of primary liver cancer caused by alcohol.

The age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100,000 people were 4.88 for AUD, 13.52 for ALD, and 8.38 for primary liver cancer.

During the time period studied, upward trends occurred in the United States, with annual ASPRs increasing by 2.52% for AUD, 1.78% for ALD, and 3.31% for primary liver cancer due to alcohol. Globally, the trends were lower, with annual increases of 0.2% for AUD, 0.38% for ALD, and 0.67% for primary liver cancer from alcohol.

During the same time, ASDRs also increased in all three categories in the United States, while global trends showed a 0.91% decline in AUD deaths and 0.6% decline in ALD deaths. Liver cancer deaths, however, increased by 0.3% worldwide.

Targeted strategies are essential to reduce this growing health burden, especially in an aging population, Danpanichkul said. “These interventions should focus on early detection, intervention, and management for individuals at risk or already affected by ALD and AUD.”

Future studies should investigate alcohol consumption and mortality trends in other age groups, including by sex, location (such as state or territory), and race and ethnicity, he said. Data for more recent years would be compelling as well.

 

Increased Alcohol Use During and After Pandemic

Numerous studies have indicated that alcohol use increased in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained elevated since then. 

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, alcohol use per 100 people increased 2.69% in 2020 and 2.96% in 2022, as compared with 2018. Increases occurred across all subgroups, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and US region.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people stayed at home, watched the television, and increased their alcohol intake” — in the United States and also in Japan — said Hisanori Muto, MD, senior assistant professor of gastroenterology at Fujita Health University in Nagoya, Japan, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Although the global numbers may appear lower, we’re also seeing an increase in AUD and ALD in Japan, similar to the United States,” he said. “It’s very important to watch these trends and address these diseases.”

Danpanichkul and Muto reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The prevalence of and number of deaths from alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are growing among people age 70 and older in the United States, according to the results of a new study.

Even as mortality rates decline globally, AUD deaths rose in the United States, increasing 1.63% per year between 2010 and 2019. Deaths from cirrhosis increased by 0.56% each year, and deaths from primary liver cancer associated with alcohol increased by 3.09% per year.

Several factors, such as an aging US population and increasing alcohol consumption, play a major role in the uptick in mortality, said lead author Pojsakorn Danpanichkul, MD, an internal medicine resident at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).

“Healthcare providers should increase screening for alcohol use among older adults and consider the added risks of alcohol consumption. Public health strategies should target alcohol prevention and treatment programs tailored to older adults,” he said.

“Older adults are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of alcohol due to natural declines in liver function and metabolism, leading to a higher risk of liver disease and complications,” he explained. However, “little research has focused on this issue.”

 

Trends in US Not Seen Globally

Danpanichkul and colleagues analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study for 2010-2019, calculating the annual percent change for the burden of AUD, ALD, and liver cancer from alcohol in patients age 70 and older. The research team then compared data in the United States to global estimates for these same diseases.

In 2019, there were 556,340 cases of AUD, 112,560 cases of ALD, and 3720 cases of liver cancer from alcohol in older adults in the United States. In addition, there were 1750 deaths attributed to AUD, 4860 deaths from ALD, and 3010 deaths caused by primary liver cancer from alcohol.

The age-standardized prevalence rates (ASPRs) per 100,000 people were 1547 cases of AUD, 313 cases of ALD, and 10 cases of primary liver cancer caused by alcohol.

The age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100,000 people were 4.88 for AUD, 13.52 for ALD, and 8.38 for primary liver cancer.

During the time period studied, upward trends occurred in the United States, with annual ASPRs increasing by 2.52% for AUD, 1.78% for ALD, and 3.31% for primary liver cancer due to alcohol. Globally, the trends were lower, with annual increases of 0.2% for AUD, 0.38% for ALD, and 0.67% for primary liver cancer from alcohol.

During the same time, ASDRs also increased in all three categories in the United States, while global trends showed a 0.91% decline in AUD deaths and 0.6% decline in ALD deaths. Liver cancer deaths, however, increased by 0.3% worldwide.

Targeted strategies are essential to reduce this growing health burden, especially in an aging population, Danpanichkul said. “These interventions should focus on early detection, intervention, and management for individuals at risk or already affected by ALD and AUD.”

Future studies should investigate alcohol consumption and mortality trends in other age groups, including by sex, location (such as state or territory), and race and ethnicity, he said. Data for more recent years would be compelling as well.

 

Increased Alcohol Use During and After Pandemic

Numerous studies have indicated that alcohol use increased in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained elevated since then. 

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, for instance, alcohol use per 100 people increased 2.69% in 2020 and 2.96% in 2022, as compared with 2018. Increases occurred across all subgroups, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and US region.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people stayed at home, watched the television, and increased their alcohol intake” — in the United States and also in Japan — said Hisanori Muto, MD, senior assistant professor of gastroenterology at Fujita Health University in Nagoya, Japan, who wasn’t involved with this study.

“Although the global numbers may appear lower, we’re also seeing an increase in AUD and ALD in Japan, similar to the United States,” he said. “It’s very important to watch these trends and address these diseases.”

Danpanichkul and Muto reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) don’t appear to face an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) when taking Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In particular, 1.76% of patients taking JAKi and 1.94% of patients taking anti-TNF developed MACE. There also weren’t significant differences when comparing ulcerative colitis with Crohn’s disease, upadacitinib with tofacitinib, or JAKi with infliximab.

“IBD is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, and with the emergence of JAK inhibitors and anti-TNF therapies, there is a concern about the increased risk of MACE,” said lead author Saqr Alsakarneh, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine.

Previous randomized controlled trials have indicated increased risks of MACE with JAKi and anti-TNF agents, compared with placebo, but researchers haven’t conducted a head-to-head comparison, he said.

“A potential explanation for previous associations could be linked to immune modulation and inflammation that can increase coagulation risk, as well as fluctuation in disease severity while patients are on the medications, which can impact cardiovascular risk factors,” he added.

Alsakarneh and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX database to identify adult patients with IBD who were treated with JAKi or anti-TNF therapy after diagnosis. After matching patients in the JAKi cohort with patients in the anti-TNF cohort, the research team looked for MACE and VTE within a year of medication initiation, as well as associations by age, sex, and IBD type.

Overall, 3740 patients in the JAKi cohort had a mean age of 43.1 and were 48.9% women and 75.3% White individuals, while 3,740 patients in the anti-TNF cohort had a mean age of 43 and were 48.9% women and 75.3% White individuals.

After excluding those with a history of a prior cardiovascular event, 57 patients (1.76%) in the JAKi cohort developed MACE, compared with 63 patients (1.94%) in the anti-TNF cohort. There weren’t significant differences between the groups in MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.99) or VTE (aHR, 0.9).

Among patients aged ≥ 65, 25 patients (5.3%) in the JAKi cohort developed MACE, as compared with 30 patients (6.4%) in the anti-TNF cohort. There weren’t significant differences between the groups in MACE (aHR, 0.83) or VTE (aHR, 0.77).

In addition, there were no differences when comparing Crohn’s disease with ulcerative colitis for MACE (aHR, 1.69) or VTE (aHR, 0.85); upadacitinib with tofacitinib for MACE (aHR, 1.1) or VTE (aHR, 1.13); or JAKi medications with infliximab for MACE (aHR, 0.85) or VTE (aHR, 0.8).

Patients in the JAKi group were more likely to undergo intestinal resection surgery (aHR, 1.32), but there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in systematic corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.99).

The study limitations included the inability to assess for disease severity, dose-dependent risk for MACE or VTE, or long-term outcomes among the two cohorts, Alsakarneh said. Prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm findings.

 

“This is a wonderful study and nice to see. We presented the same thing at Digestive Disease Week that’s being confirmed in this data,” said Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease Institute in Ohio. Regueiro, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“Looking ahead, all of us are wondering if the regulatory guidance by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is going to change the label so we don’t need to step through a TNF,” he said. “I think we’re seeing study after study showing safety or at least not an increased risk with JAK.”

The study was awarded an ACG Noteworthy Abstract. Alsakarneh and Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) don’t appear to face an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) when taking Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In particular, 1.76% of patients taking JAKi and 1.94% of patients taking anti-TNF developed MACE. There also weren’t significant differences when comparing ulcerative colitis with Crohn’s disease, upadacitinib with tofacitinib, or JAKi with infliximab.

“IBD is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, and with the emergence of JAK inhibitors and anti-TNF therapies, there is a concern about the increased risk of MACE,” said lead author Saqr Alsakarneh, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine.

Previous randomized controlled trials have indicated increased risks of MACE with JAKi and anti-TNF agents, compared with placebo, but researchers haven’t conducted a head-to-head comparison, he said.

“A potential explanation for previous associations could be linked to immune modulation and inflammation that can increase coagulation risk, as well as fluctuation in disease severity while patients are on the medications, which can impact cardiovascular risk factors,” he added.

Alsakarneh and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX database to identify adult patients with IBD who were treated with JAKi or anti-TNF therapy after diagnosis. After matching patients in the JAKi cohort with patients in the anti-TNF cohort, the research team looked for MACE and VTE within a year of medication initiation, as well as associations by age, sex, and IBD type.

Overall, 3740 patients in the JAKi cohort had a mean age of 43.1 and were 48.9% women and 75.3% White individuals, while 3,740 patients in the anti-TNF cohort had a mean age of 43 and were 48.9% women and 75.3% White individuals.

After excluding those with a history of a prior cardiovascular event, 57 patients (1.76%) in the JAKi cohort developed MACE, compared with 63 patients (1.94%) in the anti-TNF cohort. There weren’t significant differences between the groups in MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.99) or VTE (aHR, 0.9).

Among patients aged ≥ 65, 25 patients (5.3%) in the JAKi cohort developed MACE, as compared with 30 patients (6.4%) in the anti-TNF cohort. There weren’t significant differences between the groups in MACE (aHR, 0.83) or VTE (aHR, 0.77).

In addition, there were no differences when comparing Crohn’s disease with ulcerative colitis for MACE (aHR, 1.69) or VTE (aHR, 0.85); upadacitinib with tofacitinib for MACE (aHR, 1.1) or VTE (aHR, 1.13); or JAKi medications with infliximab for MACE (aHR, 0.85) or VTE (aHR, 0.8).

Patients in the JAKi group were more likely to undergo intestinal resection surgery (aHR, 1.32), but there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in systematic corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.99).

The study limitations included the inability to assess for disease severity, dose-dependent risk for MACE or VTE, or long-term outcomes among the two cohorts, Alsakarneh said. Prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm findings.

 

“This is a wonderful study and nice to see. We presented the same thing at Digestive Disease Week that’s being confirmed in this data,” said Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease Institute in Ohio. Regueiro, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“Looking ahead, all of us are wondering if the regulatory guidance by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is going to change the label so we don’t need to step through a TNF,” he said. “I think we’re seeing study after study showing safety or at least not an increased risk with JAK.”

The study was awarded an ACG Noteworthy Abstract. Alsakarneh and Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) don’t appear to face an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) when taking Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, according to a study presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In particular, 1.76% of patients taking JAKi and 1.94% of patients taking anti-TNF developed MACE. There also weren’t significant differences when comparing ulcerative colitis with Crohn’s disease, upadacitinib with tofacitinib, or JAKi with infliximab.

“IBD is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, and with the emergence of JAK inhibitors and anti-TNF therapies, there is a concern about the increased risk of MACE,” said lead author Saqr Alsakarneh, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine.

Previous randomized controlled trials have indicated increased risks of MACE with JAKi and anti-TNF agents, compared with placebo, but researchers haven’t conducted a head-to-head comparison, he said.

“A potential explanation for previous associations could be linked to immune modulation and inflammation that can increase coagulation risk, as well as fluctuation in disease severity while patients are on the medications, which can impact cardiovascular risk factors,” he added.

Alsakarneh and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX database to identify adult patients with IBD who were treated with JAKi or anti-TNF therapy after diagnosis. After matching patients in the JAKi cohort with patients in the anti-TNF cohort, the research team looked for MACE and VTE within a year of medication initiation, as well as associations by age, sex, and IBD type.

Overall, 3740 patients in the JAKi cohort had a mean age of 43.1 and were 48.9% women and 75.3% White individuals, while 3,740 patients in the anti-TNF cohort had a mean age of 43 and were 48.9% women and 75.3% White individuals.

After excluding those with a history of a prior cardiovascular event, 57 patients (1.76%) in the JAKi cohort developed MACE, compared with 63 patients (1.94%) in the anti-TNF cohort. There weren’t significant differences between the groups in MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.99) or VTE (aHR, 0.9).

Among patients aged ≥ 65, 25 patients (5.3%) in the JAKi cohort developed MACE, as compared with 30 patients (6.4%) in the anti-TNF cohort. There weren’t significant differences between the groups in MACE (aHR, 0.83) or VTE (aHR, 0.77).

In addition, there were no differences when comparing Crohn’s disease with ulcerative colitis for MACE (aHR, 1.69) or VTE (aHR, 0.85); upadacitinib with tofacitinib for MACE (aHR, 1.1) or VTE (aHR, 1.13); or JAKi medications with infliximab for MACE (aHR, 0.85) or VTE (aHR, 0.8).

Patients in the JAKi group were more likely to undergo intestinal resection surgery (aHR, 1.32), but there wasn’t a statistically significant difference in systematic corticosteroid use (aHR, 0.99).

The study limitations included the inability to assess for disease severity, dose-dependent risk for MACE or VTE, or long-term outcomes among the two cohorts, Alsakarneh said. Prospective controlled trials are needed to confirm findings.

 

“This is a wonderful study and nice to see. We presented the same thing at Digestive Disease Week that’s being confirmed in this data,” said Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease Institute in Ohio. Regueiro, who wasn’t involved with the study, attended the conference session.

“Looking ahead, all of us are wondering if the regulatory guidance by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is going to change the label so we don’t need to step through a TNF,” he said. “I think we’re seeing study after study showing safety or at least not an increased risk with JAK.”

The study was awarded an ACG Noteworthy Abstract. Alsakarneh and Regueiro reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Muvalaplin, a novel oral medication, safely and effectively lowers high levels of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), results from the phase 2 KRAKEN trial show.

Concentrations of Lp(a) cholesterol are genetically determined and remain steady throughout life. Levels of 125 nmol/L or higher promote clotting and inflammation, significantly increasing the risk for heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis, and peripheral artery disease. This affects about 20% of the population, particularly people of Black African and South Asian descent.

There are currently no approved therapies that lower Lp(a), said study author Stephen Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, director of the Victorian Heart Institute at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Several injectable therapies are currently in clinical trials, but muvalaplin is the only oral option. The new drug lowers Lp(a) levels by disrupting the bond between the two parts of the Lp(a) particle.

 

The KRAKEN Trial

In the KRAKEN trial, 233 adults from around the world with very high Lp(a) levels (> 175 nmol/L) were randomized either to one of three daily doses of muvalaplin — 10, 60, or 240 mg — or to placebo for 12 weeks.

The researchers measured Lp(a) levels with a standard blood test and with a novel test designed to specifically measure levels of intact Lp(a) particles in the blood. In addition to Lp(a), the standard test detects one of its components, apolipoprotein A particles, that are bound to the drug, which can lead to an underestimation of Lp(a) reductions.

Lp(a) levels were up to 70.0% lower in the muvalaplin group than in the placebo group when measured with the traditional blood test and by up to 85.5% lower when measured with the new test. Approximately 82% of participants achieved an Lp(a) level lower than 125 nmol/L when measured with the traditional blood test, and 97% achieved that level when the new test was used. Patients who received either 60 or 240 mg of muvalaplin had similar reductions in Lp(a) levels, which were greater than the reductions seen in the 10 mg group. The drug was safe and generally well tolerated.

“This is a very reassuring phase 2 result,” Nicholls said when he presented the KRAKEN findings at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago, which were simultaneously published online in JAMA. “It encourages the ongoing development of this agent.”

Lp(a) levels are not affected by changes in lifestyle or diet or by traditional lipid-lowering treatments like statins, said Erin Michos, MD, a cardiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not involved in the study.

And high Lp(a) levels confer significant cardiovascular risk even when other risks are reduced. So muvalaplin is “a highly promising approach to treat a previously untreatable disorder,” she explained.

Larger and longer studies, with more diverse patient populations, are needed to confirm the results and to determine whether reducing Lp(a) also improves cardiovascular outcomes, Michos pointed out.

“While muvalaplin appears to be an effective approach to lowering Lp(a) levels, we still need to study whether Lp(a) lowering will result in fewer heart attacks and strokes,” Nicholls added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

SEATTLE — A novel, quick, and low-cost dementia screening test could significantly improve early detection of Alzheimer’s disease in primary care settings, according to research presented at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The test, called qBEANS — short for Quick Behavioral Exam to Advance Neuropsychological Screening — involves patients spooning raw kidney beans into small plastic cups in a specific sequence to assess motor learning, visuospatial memory, and executive function. It requires no technology or wearable sensors, making it accessible and easy to implement.

Previous research has shown qBEANS to be sensitive and specific to Alzheimer’s disease pathology, as well as predictive of cognitive and functional decline, the researchers said.

However, the current version of the test takes around 7 minutes to administer, which is too long for use in primary care, according to study author Sydney Schaefer, PhD, associate professor in the School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

“The purpose of this study was to identify the minimum number of trials needed for reliability relative to the original longer version,” said Schaefer.

The study involved 48 participants without dementia, 77% of whom were women, and an average age of 75.4 years.

The researchers found that the shortened version of the qBEANS test takes only about 3.85 minutes on average — nearly 48% faster than the original version — while still maintaining high reliability (intraclass correlation of 0.85).

With its brevity and simplicity, the test could be easily administered by medical assistants during patient check-in, potentially increasing early dementia detection rates in primary care, said Schaefer.

While the shortened qBEANS test shows promise, further research is needed to assess its acceptability in primary care settings.

“The findings also warrant further development of the BEAN as a direct-to-consumer product, given its low cost and ease of administration,” said Schaefer.

However, Carla Perissinotto, MD, MHS, professor in the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, cautioned that direct-to-consumer plans “could lead to participants not knowing what to do with the results out of context and without clinical input.”

“I’m not sure that we need to have a new evaluation tool, but instead, greater adoption of known and existing tools,” said Perissinotto, who was not involved in the study.

According to Perissinotto, existing cognitive screening tools Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are more commonly used to evaluate cognition and are also relatively quick to administer.

“If [qBEANS] is not benchmarked to other standard tools like the MMSE or MoCA, clinicians may have trouble interpreting results,” said Perissinotto.

Study co-authors Schaefer and Jill Love are co-founders and managing members of Neurosessments LLC, which developed the qBEANS test.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — A novel, quick, and low-cost dementia screening test could significantly improve early detection of Alzheimer’s disease in primary care settings, according to research presented at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The test, called qBEANS — short for Quick Behavioral Exam to Advance Neuropsychological Screening — involves patients spooning raw kidney beans into small plastic cups in a specific sequence to assess motor learning, visuospatial memory, and executive function. It requires no technology or wearable sensors, making it accessible and easy to implement.

Previous research has shown qBEANS to be sensitive and specific to Alzheimer’s disease pathology, as well as predictive of cognitive and functional decline, the researchers said.

However, the current version of the test takes around 7 minutes to administer, which is too long for use in primary care, according to study author Sydney Schaefer, PhD, associate professor in the School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

“The purpose of this study was to identify the minimum number of trials needed for reliability relative to the original longer version,” said Schaefer.

The study involved 48 participants without dementia, 77% of whom were women, and an average age of 75.4 years.

The researchers found that the shortened version of the qBEANS test takes only about 3.85 minutes on average — nearly 48% faster than the original version — while still maintaining high reliability (intraclass correlation of 0.85).

With its brevity and simplicity, the test could be easily administered by medical assistants during patient check-in, potentially increasing early dementia detection rates in primary care, said Schaefer.

While the shortened qBEANS test shows promise, further research is needed to assess its acceptability in primary care settings.

“The findings also warrant further development of the BEAN as a direct-to-consumer product, given its low cost and ease of administration,” said Schaefer.

However, Carla Perissinotto, MD, MHS, professor in the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, cautioned that direct-to-consumer plans “could lead to participants not knowing what to do with the results out of context and without clinical input.”

“I’m not sure that we need to have a new evaluation tool, but instead, greater adoption of known and existing tools,” said Perissinotto, who was not involved in the study.

According to Perissinotto, existing cognitive screening tools Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are more commonly used to evaluate cognition and are also relatively quick to administer.

“If [qBEANS] is not benchmarked to other standard tools like the MMSE or MoCA, clinicians may have trouble interpreting results,” said Perissinotto.

Study co-authors Schaefer and Jill Love are co-founders and managing members of Neurosessments LLC, which developed the qBEANS test.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — A novel, quick, and low-cost dementia screening test could significantly improve early detection of Alzheimer’s disease in primary care settings, according to research presented at the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The test, called qBEANS — short for Quick Behavioral Exam to Advance Neuropsychological Screening — involves patients spooning raw kidney beans into small plastic cups in a specific sequence to assess motor learning, visuospatial memory, and executive function. It requires no technology or wearable sensors, making it accessible and easy to implement.

Previous research has shown qBEANS to be sensitive and specific to Alzheimer’s disease pathology, as well as predictive of cognitive and functional decline, the researchers said.

However, the current version of the test takes around 7 minutes to administer, which is too long for use in primary care, according to study author Sydney Schaefer, PhD, associate professor in the School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

“The purpose of this study was to identify the minimum number of trials needed for reliability relative to the original longer version,” said Schaefer.

The study involved 48 participants without dementia, 77% of whom were women, and an average age of 75.4 years.

The researchers found that the shortened version of the qBEANS test takes only about 3.85 minutes on average — nearly 48% faster than the original version — while still maintaining high reliability (intraclass correlation of 0.85).

With its brevity and simplicity, the test could be easily administered by medical assistants during patient check-in, potentially increasing early dementia detection rates in primary care, said Schaefer.

While the shortened qBEANS test shows promise, further research is needed to assess its acceptability in primary care settings.

“The findings also warrant further development of the BEAN as a direct-to-consumer product, given its low cost and ease of administration,” said Schaefer.

However, Carla Perissinotto, MD, MHS, professor in the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, cautioned that direct-to-consumer plans “could lead to participants not knowing what to do with the results out of context and without clinical input.”

“I’m not sure that we need to have a new evaluation tool, but instead, greater adoption of known and existing tools,” said Perissinotto, who was not involved in the study.

According to Perissinotto, existing cognitive screening tools Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are more commonly used to evaluate cognition and are also relatively quick to administer.

“If [qBEANS] is not benchmarked to other standard tools like the MMSE or MoCA, clinicians may have trouble interpreting results,” said Perissinotto.

Study co-authors Schaefer and Jill Love are co-founders and managing members of Neurosessments LLC, which developed the qBEANS test.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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