Conference Coverage

AMSTERDAM — Following the report of results from a randomized trial in which a topically applied Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor was highly active in patients with mild to moderate hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), an open-label extension showed that 16 more weeks of treatment on as-needed basis provided complete or near complete clearance of lesions in up to 38.5% of patients.

“Ruxolitinib cream may be a novel approach to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of milder HS for which there are no currently approved treatments,” reported Martina L. Porter, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

In the earlier 16-week, double-blind, randomized period of this phase 2b study, 69 adults with mild to moderate HS were randomized to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle, applied twice daily for 16 weeks. The new results are from the open-label extension period, where those on the vehicle were crossed over to topical ruxolitinib and treatment was continued for another 16 weeks.
 

Over 80% Meet Primary Endpoint at 32 Weeks

Entry criteria for the study included Hurley stage I or II HS with no draining tunnels. Hurley stage III patients were not eligible. Patients had to have an abscess or inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 3 lesions concentrated in a single anatomic area or up to 10 lesions if disseminated. The median AN count of those enrolled was 5.4. 

In the randomized portion of the study and in the open-label extension, the recommendation for application was to apply the medication to nodules and a 1-cm area of surrounding skin. As-needed treatment was only recommended in the extension portion of the study and rescue medication was not allowed.

The goal of the open-label extension was to evaluate how long the improvements were sustained, according to Dr. Porter, who presented the results at the 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting.

The primary endpoints of AN50, signaling at least a 50% reduction in AN count from baseline, among those initially randomized to ruxolitinib cream climbed slightly from 79.2% at the end of 16 weeks to 81.0% at the end of 32 weeks.

This shows that the benefits recorded in the randomized phase of the trial were sustained during the open-label extension, Dr. Porter said. 

For those randomized to vehicle, there was a substantial response of 56.3% for AN50 during the randomized portion of the study, but catchup in the vehicle group to those on active therapy occurred rapidly over the open-label extension. By the end of 32 weeks, the score among the crossover patients slightly exceeded that of those on continuous therapy (88.5% vs 81.0%).

AN75 responses at week 32 were 66.7% and 61.5% in the continuous arm and crossover arm, respectively. The proportion of patients reaching an AN90 or AN100 response, meaning clear or almost clear, were 19% and 38.5%, in continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively.

One of the secondary endpoints was the HS Clinical Response 50, indicating at least a 50% reduction in the AN count with no increase in abscesses or draining fistulae. At 32 weeks, the proportions of patients who met this endpoint were 81.0% and 88.5% in the continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively. 

The mean reduction in International HS Severity Scoring System scores from baseline were 4.1 and 4.5 in the continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively. 
 

Patients in the Study Mostly Women, 42% Black Individuals

Most (94%) of the participants were women; about 45% and 42% were White and Black individuals, respectively. Most of the remaining patients were Asian individuals. The median age at entry was 29 years, and the mean body mass index was approximately 34 kg/m². A substantial proportion of patients had systemic comorbidities, according to Dr. Porter, who noted that about 25% had anxiety, depression, or both.

“This phenotype — a high proportion of women with nodules but no draining tunnels and a substantial number of comorbidities — is one we often see in patients with mild HS,” Dr. Porter said.

The safety and tolerability profile of ruxolitinib cream was quite good, according to Dr. Porter, who noted that there were fewer treatment-related adverse events in the open-label extension. Overall, the number of treatment-related adverse events (3.6%), including application site reactions leading to discontinuation (1.8%) was low. 

Although there is a growing list of therapies now approved for HS, Dr. Porter emphasized that all have been developed for moderate to severe disease. She suggested that there is a sizable group of patients with mild disease for whom such therapies as biologics might not be warranted even if symptom relief is needed.

Given this unmet need, she said phase 3 trials are warranted to confirm the benefits and the safety of a topical therapy that can be used as needed to control intermittent HS flares.

Asked to comment, the lead author of a recently published review article on the “evolving treatment landscape” of HS, James G. Krueger, MD, professor in clinical investigation at Rockefeller University, New York City, agreed that there is an unmet need for effective and safe therapies in milder HS.

“I agree with the premise,” said Dr. Krueger, indicating that phase 3 data will be essential to confirm the promise of this approach. Dr. Krueger, who did not hear the results presented at the EADV meeting, listed several JAK inhibitors in his review that have shown promising efficacy as oral agents and support JAK signaling as a target of HS treatment. 

Topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) is currently approved in the United States for treating nonsegmental vitiligo in patients aged ≥ 12 years and for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients aged ≥ 12 years. In Europe, it is approved for treatment of nonsegmental vitiligo with facial involvement in patients aged ≥ 12 years. 

Dr. Porter reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Krueger reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies not including Incyte, which is developing ruxolitinib cream.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — Following the report of results from a randomized trial in which a topically applied Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor was highly active in patients with mild to moderate hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), an open-label extension showed that 16 more weeks of treatment on as-needed basis provided complete or near complete clearance of lesions in up to 38.5% of patients.

“Ruxolitinib cream may be a novel approach to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of milder HS for which there are no currently approved treatments,” reported Martina L. Porter, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

In the earlier 16-week, double-blind, randomized period of this phase 2b study, 69 adults with mild to moderate HS were randomized to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle, applied twice daily for 16 weeks. The new results are from the open-label extension period, where those on the vehicle were crossed over to topical ruxolitinib and treatment was continued for another 16 weeks.
 

Over 80% Meet Primary Endpoint at 32 Weeks

Entry criteria for the study included Hurley stage I or II HS with no draining tunnels. Hurley stage III patients were not eligible. Patients had to have an abscess or inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 3 lesions concentrated in a single anatomic area or up to 10 lesions if disseminated. The median AN count of those enrolled was 5.4. 

In the randomized portion of the study and in the open-label extension, the recommendation for application was to apply the medication to nodules and a 1-cm area of surrounding skin. As-needed treatment was only recommended in the extension portion of the study and rescue medication was not allowed.

The goal of the open-label extension was to evaluate how long the improvements were sustained, according to Dr. Porter, who presented the results at the 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting.

The primary endpoints of AN50, signaling at least a 50% reduction in AN count from baseline, among those initially randomized to ruxolitinib cream climbed slightly from 79.2% at the end of 16 weeks to 81.0% at the end of 32 weeks.

This shows that the benefits recorded in the randomized phase of the trial were sustained during the open-label extension, Dr. Porter said. 

For those randomized to vehicle, there was a substantial response of 56.3% for AN50 during the randomized portion of the study, but catchup in the vehicle group to those on active therapy occurred rapidly over the open-label extension. By the end of 32 weeks, the score among the crossover patients slightly exceeded that of those on continuous therapy (88.5% vs 81.0%).

AN75 responses at week 32 were 66.7% and 61.5% in the continuous arm and crossover arm, respectively. The proportion of patients reaching an AN90 or AN100 response, meaning clear or almost clear, were 19% and 38.5%, in continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively.

One of the secondary endpoints was the HS Clinical Response 50, indicating at least a 50% reduction in the AN count with no increase in abscesses or draining fistulae. At 32 weeks, the proportions of patients who met this endpoint were 81.0% and 88.5% in the continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively. 

The mean reduction in International HS Severity Scoring System scores from baseline were 4.1 and 4.5 in the continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively. 
 

Patients in the Study Mostly Women, 42% Black Individuals

Most (94%) of the participants were women; about 45% and 42% were White and Black individuals, respectively. Most of the remaining patients were Asian individuals. The median age at entry was 29 years, and the mean body mass index was approximately 34 kg/m². A substantial proportion of patients had systemic comorbidities, according to Dr. Porter, who noted that about 25% had anxiety, depression, or both.

“This phenotype — a high proportion of women with nodules but no draining tunnels and a substantial number of comorbidities — is one we often see in patients with mild HS,” Dr. Porter said.

The safety and tolerability profile of ruxolitinib cream was quite good, according to Dr. Porter, who noted that there were fewer treatment-related adverse events in the open-label extension. Overall, the number of treatment-related adverse events (3.6%), including application site reactions leading to discontinuation (1.8%) was low. 

Although there is a growing list of therapies now approved for HS, Dr. Porter emphasized that all have been developed for moderate to severe disease. She suggested that there is a sizable group of patients with mild disease for whom such therapies as biologics might not be warranted even if symptom relief is needed.

Given this unmet need, she said phase 3 trials are warranted to confirm the benefits and the safety of a topical therapy that can be used as needed to control intermittent HS flares.

Asked to comment, the lead author of a recently published review article on the “evolving treatment landscape” of HS, James G. Krueger, MD, professor in clinical investigation at Rockefeller University, New York City, agreed that there is an unmet need for effective and safe therapies in milder HS.

“I agree with the premise,” said Dr. Krueger, indicating that phase 3 data will be essential to confirm the promise of this approach. Dr. Krueger, who did not hear the results presented at the EADV meeting, listed several JAK inhibitors in his review that have shown promising efficacy as oral agents and support JAK signaling as a target of HS treatment. 

Topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) is currently approved in the United States for treating nonsegmental vitiligo in patients aged ≥ 12 years and for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients aged ≥ 12 years. In Europe, it is approved for treatment of nonsegmental vitiligo with facial involvement in patients aged ≥ 12 years. 

Dr. Porter reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Krueger reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies not including Incyte, which is developing ruxolitinib cream.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM — Following the report of results from a randomized trial in which a topically applied Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor was highly active in patients with mild to moderate hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), an open-label extension showed that 16 more weeks of treatment on as-needed basis provided complete or near complete clearance of lesions in up to 38.5% of patients.

“Ruxolitinib cream may be a novel approach to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of milder HS for which there are no currently approved treatments,” reported Martina L. Porter, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

In the earlier 16-week, double-blind, randomized period of this phase 2b study, 69 adults with mild to moderate HS were randomized to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle, applied twice daily for 16 weeks. The new results are from the open-label extension period, where those on the vehicle were crossed over to topical ruxolitinib and treatment was continued for another 16 weeks.
 

Over 80% Meet Primary Endpoint at 32 Weeks

Entry criteria for the study included Hurley stage I or II HS with no draining tunnels. Hurley stage III patients were not eligible. Patients had to have an abscess or inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 3 lesions concentrated in a single anatomic area or up to 10 lesions if disseminated. The median AN count of those enrolled was 5.4. 

In the randomized portion of the study and in the open-label extension, the recommendation for application was to apply the medication to nodules and a 1-cm area of surrounding skin. As-needed treatment was only recommended in the extension portion of the study and rescue medication was not allowed.

The goal of the open-label extension was to evaluate how long the improvements were sustained, according to Dr. Porter, who presented the results at the 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting.

The primary endpoints of AN50, signaling at least a 50% reduction in AN count from baseline, among those initially randomized to ruxolitinib cream climbed slightly from 79.2% at the end of 16 weeks to 81.0% at the end of 32 weeks.

This shows that the benefits recorded in the randomized phase of the trial were sustained during the open-label extension, Dr. Porter said. 

For those randomized to vehicle, there was a substantial response of 56.3% for AN50 during the randomized portion of the study, but catchup in the vehicle group to those on active therapy occurred rapidly over the open-label extension. By the end of 32 weeks, the score among the crossover patients slightly exceeded that of those on continuous therapy (88.5% vs 81.0%).

AN75 responses at week 32 were 66.7% and 61.5% in the continuous arm and crossover arm, respectively. The proportion of patients reaching an AN90 or AN100 response, meaning clear or almost clear, were 19% and 38.5%, in continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively.

One of the secondary endpoints was the HS Clinical Response 50, indicating at least a 50% reduction in the AN count with no increase in abscesses or draining fistulae. At 32 weeks, the proportions of patients who met this endpoint were 81.0% and 88.5% in the continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively. 

The mean reduction in International HS Severity Scoring System scores from baseline were 4.1 and 4.5 in the continuous treatment and crossover arms, respectively. 
 

Patients in the Study Mostly Women, 42% Black Individuals

Most (94%) of the participants were women; about 45% and 42% were White and Black individuals, respectively. Most of the remaining patients were Asian individuals. The median age at entry was 29 years, and the mean body mass index was approximately 34 kg/m². A substantial proportion of patients had systemic comorbidities, according to Dr. Porter, who noted that about 25% had anxiety, depression, or both.

“This phenotype — a high proportion of women with nodules but no draining tunnels and a substantial number of comorbidities — is one we often see in patients with mild HS,” Dr. Porter said.

The safety and tolerability profile of ruxolitinib cream was quite good, according to Dr. Porter, who noted that there were fewer treatment-related adverse events in the open-label extension. Overall, the number of treatment-related adverse events (3.6%), including application site reactions leading to discontinuation (1.8%) was low. 

Although there is a growing list of therapies now approved for HS, Dr. Porter emphasized that all have been developed for moderate to severe disease. She suggested that there is a sizable group of patients with mild disease for whom such therapies as biologics might not be warranted even if symptom relief is needed.

Given this unmet need, she said phase 3 trials are warranted to confirm the benefits and the safety of a topical therapy that can be used as needed to control intermittent HS flares.

Asked to comment, the lead author of a recently published review article on the “evolving treatment landscape” of HS, James G. Krueger, MD, professor in clinical investigation at Rockefeller University, New York City, agreed that there is an unmet need for effective and safe therapies in milder HS.

“I agree with the premise,” said Dr. Krueger, indicating that phase 3 data will be essential to confirm the promise of this approach. Dr. Krueger, who did not hear the results presented at the EADV meeting, listed several JAK inhibitors in his review that have shown promising efficacy as oral agents and support JAK signaling as a target of HS treatment. 

Topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) is currently approved in the United States for treating nonsegmental vitiligo in patients aged ≥ 12 years and for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients aged ≥ 12 years. In Europe, it is approved for treatment of nonsegmental vitiligo with facial involvement in patients aged ≥ 12 years. 

Dr. Porter reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Krueger reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies not including Incyte, which is developing ruxolitinib cream.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — The appropriate dose of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) depends on the root cause of the insufficiency, according to results of a prospective study using European registry data. 

Specifically, patients with EPI caused by pancreatic cancer or pancreatectomy need significantly more enzyme replacement than patients with insufficiency caused by chronic pancreatitis and acute pancreatitis. The need to add a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to achieve the therapeutic goal also varies by condition, the study showed. 

World Pancreatic Cancer Coalition

One of the main symptoms of EPI is malnutrition, and successful PERT is defined as the resolution of nutritional deficiencies and relief of symptoms and signs associated with insufficiency, said study lead Enrique Domínguez Muñoz, MD, director of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 

Our findings show that, “in order to achieve this, enzyme dose escalation and sometimes additional treatment with a [PPI] should be applied as required by the individual”, he reported in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Therefore, having dose recommendations for PERT for different causes of EPI is very helpful, said Domínguez Muñoz.

Pancreatic enzyme preparations, specifically pancreatin, are the recommended first-line treatment for EPI, but the initial doses of PERT vary depending on the patient’s age (whether adult or child), the severity of the insufficiency, and the fat content of the meal eaten. 

Domínguez Muñoz and colleagues wanted to explore whether — and how — the severity of EPI varied with different diseases, therefore varying the optimal dose of PERT. 
 

Optimal Dosing to Achieve Therapeutic Goal 

The prospective study drew on data from a European multicenter registry of patients diagnosed with EPI being treated with PERT in expert centers. 

The researchers evaluated the dose of PERT required to achieve symptom relief and normalization of the nutritional status in adult patients with EPI secondary to different pancreatic diseases and conditions. The percentage of patients who required the addition of a PPI to PERT to achieve the therapeutic goal was also determined. 

Decisions on the initial enzyme dose (including the addition of a PPI) and any necessary adjustments during follow-up to achieve the therapeutic goal were made by the participants’ clinicians.

A total of 678 patients (mean age, 61.2 ± 13.8 years; 63.6% male) were stratified according to disease: 50% had chronic pancreatitis, 10% had acute pancreatitis, 17% had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy, 15% had pancreatic cancer, and 8% had another pancreatic condition. 

To achieve the therapeutic goal, the median optimal enzyme doses with the main meal for patients with acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and pancreaticoduodenectomy, were 40,000, 50,000, 70,000, and 75,000 Ph.U, respectively. The respective optimal daily enzyme doses were 100,000, 150,000, 210,000, and 225,000 Ph.U. 

The highest enzyme doses required with the main meal to achieve the therapeutic goal for patients with acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and pancreaticoduodenectomy were 125,000, 210,000, 175,000, and 210,000 Ph.U, respectively. The respective highest daily enzyme doses were 400,000, 625,000, 675,000, and 750,000 Ph.U. 

The need for additional therapy with twice-daily PPI to achieve the therapeutic goal also varied according to the underlying disease. It was administered to 44.1% of patients with acute pancreatitis, 37.2% of patients with chronic pancreatitis, 78.8% of patients with pancreatic cancer, and 74.1% of patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy. 

“This shows us that sometimes we really do need to significantly increase the dose of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy,” reported Domínguez Muñoz. 
 

Clear Direction on Where to Start

Comoderator Kasper Overbeek, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, the Netherlands, commented: “It’s a useful study because it gives us practical advice on what to do in specific cases.”

Dr. Overbeek

Until now, we’ve done the same thing for everyone, he said, “but these data clearly show that this is not optimal.” 

In addition, “it is often the case with enzyme replacement therapy that doctors under-dose so it is necessary to increase the dose,” he said.

“This work gives us a clearer direction on where to start,” Overbeek said. “For example, with patients who have cancer, because they do not have time to start low and titrate up, they need a higher dose than patients with chronic pancreatitis.”

This pragmatic and novel guidance will “help us in our clinical practice,” he added.

Domínguez Muñoz reports receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Viatris, Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and Boston Scientific. Overbeek reports no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — The appropriate dose of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) depends on the root cause of the insufficiency, according to results of a prospective study using European registry data. 

Specifically, patients with EPI caused by pancreatic cancer or pancreatectomy need significantly more enzyme replacement than patients with insufficiency caused by chronic pancreatitis and acute pancreatitis. The need to add a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to achieve the therapeutic goal also varies by condition, the study showed. 

World Pancreatic Cancer Coalition

One of the main symptoms of EPI is malnutrition, and successful PERT is defined as the resolution of nutritional deficiencies and relief of symptoms and signs associated with insufficiency, said study lead Enrique Domínguez Muñoz, MD, director of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 

Our findings show that, “in order to achieve this, enzyme dose escalation and sometimes additional treatment with a [PPI] should be applied as required by the individual”, he reported in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Therefore, having dose recommendations for PERT for different causes of EPI is very helpful, said Domínguez Muñoz.

Pancreatic enzyme preparations, specifically pancreatin, are the recommended first-line treatment for EPI, but the initial doses of PERT vary depending on the patient’s age (whether adult or child), the severity of the insufficiency, and the fat content of the meal eaten. 

Domínguez Muñoz and colleagues wanted to explore whether — and how — the severity of EPI varied with different diseases, therefore varying the optimal dose of PERT. 
 

Optimal Dosing to Achieve Therapeutic Goal 

The prospective study drew on data from a European multicenter registry of patients diagnosed with EPI being treated with PERT in expert centers. 

The researchers evaluated the dose of PERT required to achieve symptom relief and normalization of the nutritional status in adult patients with EPI secondary to different pancreatic diseases and conditions. The percentage of patients who required the addition of a PPI to PERT to achieve the therapeutic goal was also determined. 

Decisions on the initial enzyme dose (including the addition of a PPI) and any necessary adjustments during follow-up to achieve the therapeutic goal were made by the participants’ clinicians.

A total of 678 patients (mean age, 61.2 ± 13.8 years; 63.6% male) were stratified according to disease: 50% had chronic pancreatitis, 10% had acute pancreatitis, 17% had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy, 15% had pancreatic cancer, and 8% had another pancreatic condition. 

To achieve the therapeutic goal, the median optimal enzyme doses with the main meal for patients with acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and pancreaticoduodenectomy, were 40,000, 50,000, 70,000, and 75,000 Ph.U, respectively. The respective optimal daily enzyme doses were 100,000, 150,000, 210,000, and 225,000 Ph.U. 

The highest enzyme doses required with the main meal to achieve the therapeutic goal for patients with acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and pancreaticoduodenectomy were 125,000, 210,000, 175,000, and 210,000 Ph.U, respectively. The respective highest daily enzyme doses were 400,000, 625,000, 675,000, and 750,000 Ph.U. 

The need for additional therapy with twice-daily PPI to achieve the therapeutic goal also varied according to the underlying disease. It was administered to 44.1% of patients with acute pancreatitis, 37.2% of patients with chronic pancreatitis, 78.8% of patients with pancreatic cancer, and 74.1% of patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy. 

“This shows us that sometimes we really do need to significantly increase the dose of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy,” reported Domínguez Muñoz. 
 

Clear Direction on Where to Start

Comoderator Kasper Overbeek, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, the Netherlands, commented: “It’s a useful study because it gives us practical advice on what to do in specific cases.”

Dr. Overbeek

Until now, we’ve done the same thing for everyone, he said, “but these data clearly show that this is not optimal.” 

In addition, “it is often the case with enzyme replacement therapy that doctors under-dose so it is necessary to increase the dose,” he said.

“This work gives us a clearer direction on where to start,” Overbeek said. “For example, with patients who have cancer, because they do not have time to start low and titrate up, they need a higher dose than patients with chronic pancreatitis.”

This pragmatic and novel guidance will “help us in our clinical practice,” he added.

Domínguez Muñoz reports receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Viatris, Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and Boston Scientific. Overbeek reports no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — The appropriate dose of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) depends on the root cause of the insufficiency, according to results of a prospective study using European registry data. 

Specifically, patients with EPI caused by pancreatic cancer or pancreatectomy need significantly more enzyme replacement than patients with insufficiency caused by chronic pancreatitis and acute pancreatitis. The need to add a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to achieve the therapeutic goal also varies by condition, the study showed. 

World Pancreatic Cancer Coalition

One of the main symptoms of EPI is malnutrition, and successful PERT is defined as the resolution of nutritional deficiencies and relief of symptoms and signs associated with insufficiency, said study lead Enrique Domínguez Muñoz, MD, director of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 

Our findings show that, “in order to achieve this, enzyme dose escalation and sometimes additional treatment with a [PPI] should be applied as required by the individual”, he reported in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Therefore, having dose recommendations for PERT for different causes of EPI is very helpful, said Domínguez Muñoz.

Pancreatic enzyme preparations, specifically pancreatin, are the recommended first-line treatment for EPI, but the initial doses of PERT vary depending on the patient’s age (whether adult or child), the severity of the insufficiency, and the fat content of the meal eaten. 

Domínguez Muñoz and colleagues wanted to explore whether — and how — the severity of EPI varied with different diseases, therefore varying the optimal dose of PERT. 
 

Optimal Dosing to Achieve Therapeutic Goal 

The prospective study drew on data from a European multicenter registry of patients diagnosed with EPI being treated with PERT in expert centers. 

The researchers evaluated the dose of PERT required to achieve symptom relief and normalization of the nutritional status in adult patients with EPI secondary to different pancreatic diseases and conditions. The percentage of patients who required the addition of a PPI to PERT to achieve the therapeutic goal was also determined. 

Decisions on the initial enzyme dose (including the addition of a PPI) and any necessary adjustments during follow-up to achieve the therapeutic goal were made by the participants’ clinicians.

A total of 678 patients (mean age, 61.2 ± 13.8 years; 63.6% male) were stratified according to disease: 50% had chronic pancreatitis, 10% had acute pancreatitis, 17% had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy, 15% had pancreatic cancer, and 8% had another pancreatic condition. 

To achieve the therapeutic goal, the median optimal enzyme doses with the main meal for patients with acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and pancreaticoduodenectomy, were 40,000, 50,000, 70,000, and 75,000 Ph.U, respectively. The respective optimal daily enzyme doses were 100,000, 150,000, 210,000, and 225,000 Ph.U. 

The highest enzyme doses required with the main meal to achieve the therapeutic goal for patients with acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and pancreaticoduodenectomy were 125,000, 210,000, 175,000, and 210,000 Ph.U, respectively. The respective highest daily enzyme doses were 400,000, 625,000, 675,000, and 750,000 Ph.U. 

The need for additional therapy with twice-daily PPI to achieve the therapeutic goal also varied according to the underlying disease. It was administered to 44.1% of patients with acute pancreatitis, 37.2% of patients with chronic pancreatitis, 78.8% of patients with pancreatic cancer, and 74.1% of patients who had undergone pancreaticoduodenectomy. 

“This shows us that sometimes we really do need to significantly increase the dose of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy,” reported Domínguez Muñoz. 
 

Clear Direction on Where to Start

Comoderator Kasper Overbeek, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, the Netherlands, commented: “It’s a useful study because it gives us practical advice on what to do in specific cases.”

Dr. Overbeek

Until now, we’ve done the same thing for everyone, he said, “but these data clearly show that this is not optimal.” 

In addition, “it is often the case with enzyme replacement therapy that doctors under-dose so it is necessary to increase the dose,” he said.

“This work gives us a clearer direction on where to start,” Overbeek said. “For example, with patients who have cancer, because they do not have time to start low and titrate up, they need a higher dose than patients with chronic pancreatitis.”

This pragmatic and novel guidance will “help us in our clinical practice,” he added.

Domínguez Muñoz reports receiving speaking and consultancy fees from Viatris, Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and Boston Scientific. Overbeek reports no relevant disclosures.

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

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There’s no medical treatment for Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease, a debilitating neurologic disorder that’s both progressive and incurable. But now, nerve specialists learned, new potential treatments are moving closer to clinical trials.

Genetic-based therapies for CMT are currently in preclinical research phases, and an experimental small-molecule drug has reached phase 3 in humans, neurologists told an audience at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. But the neurologists also noted challenges, such as determining the best way to track disease progression — which can be slow — and the need to recruit high numbers of patients for trials.
 

A Common Genetic Neuromuscular Disorder

As Mario Saporta, MD, PhD, MBA, of the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, explained, CMT is the most common genetic neuromuscular disorder, affecting 1 in 2500 people or about 130,000-150,000 in the United States. “Typically, it’s a length-dependent neuropathy, where your longest nerves would be affected earlier and more severely. That’s why we see foot deformities, inverted champagne bottle legs, and hand atrophy.”

Most patients with CMT in the United States have type 1A, which is linked to duplication of the PMP22 gene. All types lead to axonal degeneration, which appears to be the main cause of functional disability, Saporta said. “Patients become weaker and then progress with time, following the degree of axonal generation that they have.”

As many as 150 genes may eventually be deemed to cause CMT. The high number of genetically different forms makes diagnosis and genetic therapy difficult, he said, but that’s just part of the picture. Variations among mutations mean there’s “probably actually over 1000 different diseases” within CMT from a biologic perspective.
 

Genetic Therapy

In regard to genetic treatment, Bipasha Mukherjee-Clavin, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said a key factor is whether the patient’s form of CMT is passed on in an autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive manner.

“Autosomal dominant conditions are typically caused by gain of function mutations. So that means the goal of our genetic therapeutic would be to reduce expression of the mutated gene,” she said. “In contrast, autosomal recessive conditions are caused by loss-of-function mutations, which means the goal of our genetic therapeutic would be to replace the mutated gene with a normal, wild-type copy.”

A tool like CRISPR could be used to directly edit the part of the genome with a CMT-causing mutation or a viral vector could deliver a healthy, wild-type copy of a gene, she said. These approaches are both being tested.

Another approach is to reduce expression at the RNA level. “RNA therapeutics are FDA [Food and Drug Administration]–approved for other neuromuscular indications, and you may well be using some of these in your own clinical practice,” she said.

Currently, about seven different projects are in the works on the RNA therapeutics front in CMT, she said, including six focusing on type 1A. Mukherjee-Clavin believes that this subtype is a “great” target because it’s so common, affecting an estimated 1 in 5000 people.

“You actually have enough patients to power a clinical trial,” she said. Also, “it’s a homogeneous population, both in terms of the genetics and in terms of the clinical presentation.”
 

Preclinical Treatment Approaches

However, there are challenges. Drug delivery to Schwann cells, which insulate axons, is difficult, she said. “The other problem is that we want to avoid overly silencing PMP22 because that runs the theoretical risk of causing a different condition, HNPP [hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies]. HNPP is caused by deletions of PMP22, so we want to avoid that situation.”

Mukherjee-Clavin highlighted two RNA therapeutic products that she expects to move from preclinical to clinical research soon.

One is TVR110 by Armatus Bio, a microRNA intrathecal injection product, which aims to reduce PMP22 overexpression. “It targets basically reduces PMP22 mRNA expression and then normalizes the amount of PMP22 protein that is ultimately generated,” she said.

The other therapy, a small interfering RNA intravenous product delivered to Schwann cells, is being developed by DTx Pharma/Novartis.

Outside of the RNA arena, “there are a number of other programs that are in the preclinical phases that I think will be moving through this pipeline,” Mukherjee-Clavin said. “We’ll see if some of these enter first-in-human clinical trials.”

Meanwhile, Saporta highlighted small-molecule strategies that target a subtype of CMT called sorbitol dehydrogenase (SORD) deficiency that’s caused by mutations in the SORD gene. He noted that Applied Therapeutics is testing an investigational drug called govorestat (AT-007) in 56 patients in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 registrational study. The company recently reported that interim 12-month results are promising.

Saporta disclosed consulting for DTx Pharma/Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Pharnext. Mukherjee-Clavin had no disclosures.

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

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There’s no medical treatment for Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease, a debilitating neurologic disorder that’s both progressive and incurable. But now, nerve specialists learned, new potential treatments are moving closer to clinical trials.

Genetic-based therapies for CMT are currently in preclinical research phases, and an experimental small-molecule drug has reached phase 3 in humans, neurologists told an audience at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. But the neurologists also noted challenges, such as determining the best way to track disease progression — which can be slow — and the need to recruit high numbers of patients for trials.
 

A Common Genetic Neuromuscular Disorder

As Mario Saporta, MD, PhD, MBA, of the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, explained, CMT is the most common genetic neuromuscular disorder, affecting 1 in 2500 people or about 130,000-150,000 in the United States. “Typically, it’s a length-dependent neuropathy, where your longest nerves would be affected earlier and more severely. That’s why we see foot deformities, inverted champagne bottle legs, and hand atrophy.”

Most patients with CMT in the United States have type 1A, which is linked to duplication of the PMP22 gene. All types lead to axonal degeneration, which appears to be the main cause of functional disability, Saporta said. “Patients become weaker and then progress with time, following the degree of axonal generation that they have.”

As many as 150 genes may eventually be deemed to cause CMT. The high number of genetically different forms makes diagnosis and genetic therapy difficult, he said, but that’s just part of the picture. Variations among mutations mean there’s “probably actually over 1000 different diseases” within CMT from a biologic perspective.
 

Genetic Therapy

In regard to genetic treatment, Bipasha Mukherjee-Clavin, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said a key factor is whether the patient’s form of CMT is passed on in an autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive manner.

“Autosomal dominant conditions are typically caused by gain of function mutations. So that means the goal of our genetic therapeutic would be to reduce expression of the mutated gene,” she said. “In contrast, autosomal recessive conditions are caused by loss-of-function mutations, which means the goal of our genetic therapeutic would be to replace the mutated gene with a normal, wild-type copy.”

A tool like CRISPR could be used to directly edit the part of the genome with a CMT-causing mutation or a viral vector could deliver a healthy, wild-type copy of a gene, she said. These approaches are both being tested.

Another approach is to reduce expression at the RNA level. “RNA therapeutics are FDA [Food and Drug Administration]–approved for other neuromuscular indications, and you may well be using some of these in your own clinical practice,” she said.

Currently, about seven different projects are in the works on the RNA therapeutics front in CMT, she said, including six focusing on type 1A. Mukherjee-Clavin believes that this subtype is a “great” target because it’s so common, affecting an estimated 1 in 5000 people.

“You actually have enough patients to power a clinical trial,” she said. Also, “it’s a homogeneous population, both in terms of the genetics and in terms of the clinical presentation.”
 

Preclinical Treatment Approaches

However, there are challenges. Drug delivery to Schwann cells, which insulate axons, is difficult, she said. “The other problem is that we want to avoid overly silencing PMP22 because that runs the theoretical risk of causing a different condition, HNPP [hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies]. HNPP is caused by deletions of PMP22, so we want to avoid that situation.”

Mukherjee-Clavin highlighted two RNA therapeutic products that she expects to move from preclinical to clinical research soon.

One is TVR110 by Armatus Bio, a microRNA intrathecal injection product, which aims to reduce PMP22 overexpression. “It targets basically reduces PMP22 mRNA expression and then normalizes the amount of PMP22 protein that is ultimately generated,” she said.

The other therapy, a small interfering RNA intravenous product delivered to Schwann cells, is being developed by DTx Pharma/Novartis.

Outside of the RNA arena, “there are a number of other programs that are in the preclinical phases that I think will be moving through this pipeline,” Mukherjee-Clavin said. “We’ll see if some of these enter first-in-human clinical trials.”

Meanwhile, Saporta highlighted small-molecule strategies that target a subtype of CMT called sorbitol dehydrogenase (SORD) deficiency that’s caused by mutations in the SORD gene. He noted that Applied Therapeutics is testing an investigational drug called govorestat (AT-007) in 56 patients in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 registrational study. The company recently reported that interim 12-month results are promising.

Saporta disclosed consulting for DTx Pharma/Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Pharnext. Mukherjee-Clavin had no disclosures.

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

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There’s no medical treatment for Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease, a debilitating neurologic disorder that’s both progressive and incurable. But now, nerve specialists learned, new potential treatments are moving closer to clinical trials.

Genetic-based therapies for CMT are currently in preclinical research phases, and an experimental small-molecule drug has reached phase 3 in humans, neurologists told an audience at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. But the neurologists also noted challenges, such as determining the best way to track disease progression — which can be slow — and the need to recruit high numbers of patients for trials.
 

A Common Genetic Neuromuscular Disorder

As Mario Saporta, MD, PhD, MBA, of the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, explained, CMT is the most common genetic neuromuscular disorder, affecting 1 in 2500 people or about 130,000-150,000 in the United States. “Typically, it’s a length-dependent neuropathy, where your longest nerves would be affected earlier and more severely. That’s why we see foot deformities, inverted champagne bottle legs, and hand atrophy.”

Most patients with CMT in the United States have type 1A, which is linked to duplication of the PMP22 gene. All types lead to axonal degeneration, which appears to be the main cause of functional disability, Saporta said. “Patients become weaker and then progress with time, following the degree of axonal generation that they have.”

As many as 150 genes may eventually be deemed to cause CMT. The high number of genetically different forms makes diagnosis and genetic therapy difficult, he said, but that’s just part of the picture. Variations among mutations mean there’s “probably actually over 1000 different diseases” within CMT from a biologic perspective.
 

Genetic Therapy

In regard to genetic treatment, Bipasha Mukherjee-Clavin, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said a key factor is whether the patient’s form of CMT is passed on in an autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive manner.

“Autosomal dominant conditions are typically caused by gain of function mutations. So that means the goal of our genetic therapeutic would be to reduce expression of the mutated gene,” she said. “In contrast, autosomal recessive conditions are caused by loss-of-function mutations, which means the goal of our genetic therapeutic would be to replace the mutated gene with a normal, wild-type copy.”

A tool like CRISPR could be used to directly edit the part of the genome with a CMT-causing mutation or a viral vector could deliver a healthy, wild-type copy of a gene, she said. These approaches are both being tested.

Another approach is to reduce expression at the RNA level. “RNA therapeutics are FDA [Food and Drug Administration]–approved for other neuromuscular indications, and you may well be using some of these in your own clinical practice,” she said.

Currently, about seven different projects are in the works on the RNA therapeutics front in CMT, she said, including six focusing on type 1A. Mukherjee-Clavin believes that this subtype is a “great” target because it’s so common, affecting an estimated 1 in 5000 people.

“You actually have enough patients to power a clinical trial,” she said. Also, “it’s a homogeneous population, both in terms of the genetics and in terms of the clinical presentation.”
 

Preclinical Treatment Approaches

However, there are challenges. Drug delivery to Schwann cells, which insulate axons, is difficult, she said. “The other problem is that we want to avoid overly silencing PMP22 because that runs the theoretical risk of causing a different condition, HNPP [hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies]. HNPP is caused by deletions of PMP22, so we want to avoid that situation.”

Mukherjee-Clavin highlighted two RNA therapeutic products that she expects to move from preclinical to clinical research soon.

One is TVR110 by Armatus Bio, a microRNA intrathecal injection product, which aims to reduce PMP22 overexpression. “It targets basically reduces PMP22 mRNA expression and then normalizes the amount of PMP22 protein that is ultimately generated,” she said.

The other therapy, a small interfering RNA intravenous product delivered to Schwann cells, is being developed by DTx Pharma/Novartis.

Outside of the RNA arena, “there are a number of other programs that are in the preclinical phases that I think will be moving through this pipeline,” Mukherjee-Clavin said. “We’ll see if some of these enter first-in-human clinical trials.”

Meanwhile, Saporta highlighted small-molecule strategies that target a subtype of CMT called sorbitol dehydrogenase (SORD) deficiency that’s caused by mutations in the SORD gene. He noted that Applied Therapeutics is testing an investigational drug called govorestat (AT-007) in 56 patients in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 registrational study. The company recently reported that interim 12-month results are promising.

Saporta disclosed consulting for DTx Pharma/Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Pharnext. Mukherjee-Clavin had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA — Individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) who carry the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele are at increased risk of having a more severe disease course requiring major surgery, hospitalization, and high-dose systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis, according to a Danish study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Reliable biomarkers are lacking to identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease at greater risk for severe disease and who therefore might require intensified monitoring and treatment.
• Researchers explored genetic variants associated with severe UC in patients from two Danish cohorts, whose DNA was extracted from dried blood spots and full blood, with genotyping then performed to assess the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and single-nucleotide variants.
• Severe UC was defined as having at least one major UC-related operation, at least two UC-related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis. Patients not meeting these criteria were considered to have less severe UC and included as the comparison group.
• A genome-wide association study was conducted comparing severe vs less severe UC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 4491 patients with UC (mean age at diagnosis, 23 years; 53% women; 27% with severe UC) and determined that carriers of the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a significantly higher risk for severe UC (odds ratio, 3.32).
• Compared with noncarriers, those with this allele had an approximately sixfold increased risk of needing major surgery, a fivefold increased risk of requiring at least two hospitalizations, and a twofold increased risk for use of over 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis.
• Time-to-event analysis showed that the association between carriers and disease severity extended beyond 3 years after diagnosis.
• Compared with noncarriers, those with the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a higher hazard ratio for time to hospitalization, major surgery, and first treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis. Given the low cost of typing a single HLA allele, HLA-DRB1*01:03 could be a valuable tool for risk assessment of patients with ulcerative colitis at diagnosis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Marie Vibeke Vestergaard, MSc, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on October 15 in JAMA, to coincide with its presentation at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria. 

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on a Danish population of European genetic ancestry and require validation in diverse patient cohorts with UC.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
 

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA — Individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) who carry the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele are at increased risk of having a more severe disease course requiring major surgery, hospitalization, and high-dose systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis, according to a Danish study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Reliable biomarkers are lacking to identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease at greater risk for severe disease and who therefore might require intensified monitoring and treatment.
• Researchers explored genetic variants associated with severe UC in patients from two Danish cohorts, whose DNA was extracted from dried blood spots and full blood, with genotyping then performed to assess the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and single-nucleotide variants.
• Severe UC was defined as having at least one major UC-related operation, at least two UC-related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis. Patients not meeting these criteria were considered to have less severe UC and included as the comparison group.
• A genome-wide association study was conducted comparing severe vs less severe UC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 4491 patients with UC (mean age at diagnosis, 23 years; 53% women; 27% with severe UC) and determined that carriers of the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a significantly higher risk for severe UC (odds ratio, 3.32).
• Compared with noncarriers, those with this allele had an approximately sixfold increased risk of needing major surgery, a fivefold increased risk of requiring at least two hospitalizations, and a twofold increased risk for use of over 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis.
• Time-to-event analysis showed that the association between carriers and disease severity extended beyond 3 years after diagnosis.
• Compared with noncarriers, those with the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a higher hazard ratio for time to hospitalization, major surgery, and first treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis. Given the low cost of typing a single HLA allele, HLA-DRB1*01:03 could be a valuable tool for risk assessment of patients with ulcerative colitis at diagnosis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Marie Vibeke Vestergaard, MSc, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on October 15 in JAMA, to coincide with its presentation at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria. 

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on a Danish population of European genetic ancestry and require validation in diverse patient cohorts with UC.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
 

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA — Individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC) who carry the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele are at increased risk of having a more severe disease course requiring major surgery, hospitalization, and high-dose systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis, according to a Danish study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Reliable biomarkers are lacking to identify patients with inflammatory bowel disease at greater risk for severe disease and who therefore might require intensified monitoring and treatment.
• Researchers explored genetic variants associated with severe UC in patients from two Danish cohorts, whose DNA was extracted from dried blood spots and full blood, with genotyping then performed to assess the presence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and single-nucleotide variants.
• Severe UC was defined as having at least one major UC-related operation, at least two UC-related hospitalizations exceeding 2 days, and/or use of at least 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis. Patients not meeting these criteria were considered to have less severe UC and included as the comparison group.
• A genome-wide association study was conducted comparing severe vs less severe UC.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 4491 patients with UC (mean age at diagnosis, 23 years; 53% women; 27% with severe UC) and determined that carriers of the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a significantly higher risk for severe UC (odds ratio, 3.32).
• Compared with noncarriers, those with this allele had an approximately sixfold increased risk of needing major surgery, a fivefold increased risk of requiring at least two hospitalizations, and a twofold increased risk for use of over 5000 mg of systemic corticosteroids within 3 years of diagnosis.
• Time-to-event analysis showed that the association between carriers and disease severity extended beyond 3 years after diagnosis.
• Compared with noncarriers, those with the HLA-DRB1*01:03 allele had a higher hazard ratio for time to hospitalization, major surgery, and first treatment with systemic corticosteroids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although HLA-DRB1*01:03 is a low-frequency allele, carriers have a significantly higher risk of severe ulcerative colitis. Given the low cost of typing a single HLA allele, HLA-DRB1*01:03 could be a valuable tool for risk assessment of patients with ulcerative colitis at diagnosis,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Marie Vibeke Vestergaard, MSc, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, was published online on October 15 in JAMA, to coincide with its presentation at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria. 

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are based on a Danish population of European genetic ancestry and require validation in diverse patient cohorts with UC.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.
 

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

Postoperative chronic pain (POCP) is common and is expected to become increasingly prevalent. This type of pain, however, which specifically arises following surgery, independent of any infection or surgical failure, remains poorly understood. Facilities dedicated to treating it are nearly nonexistent.

At the 2024 congress of the French Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation, anesthesiologists specializing in pain management advocated for improved management of POCP. They put themselves forward as essential interlocutors and actors in this effort. The anesthesiologists also called for better recognition of postoperative pain by patients, general practitioners, and surgeons to enable early intervention and reduce the risk for chronicity.
 

Underrecognized, Poorly Managed

POCP is defined as persistent pain lasting more than 3 months after surgery, unrelated to preoperative pain, and not associated with surgical complications. It can manifest in various forms, but the most typical scenario involves a patient complaining of persistent pain that developed following a surgical procedure. Normal radiological and biologic assessments rule out infectious complications. The persistence of pain long after surgery contrasts with what is often considered a successful surgical outcome by the surgeon.

“Of the 10 million patients operated on each year in France, it is estimated that about 10% will develop POCP, equating to 1.2 million patients,” explained Cyril Quémeneur, a specialist in anesthesiology and pain management at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, France.

Because of the increasing number of surgical interventions in recent years, POCP has become a major concern. “Currently, there are 275 facilities dedicated to chronic pain across the country, capable of accommodating between 300,000 and 400,000 patients. Given that knee replacement surgery — the incidence of which is rising sharply — results in postoperative pain for 20%-30% of operated patients, the question of managing this type of pain will become even more pressing in the future,” said Quémeneur.

Moreover, specialized facilities for transitional pain management are not widespread in France, unlike in Canada, which has been developing them for about a decade, he noted.

France’s pain treatment centers “are overwhelmed,” said Gilles Lebuffe, a specialist in anesthesiology and pain management at Lille University Hospital in Lille, France. “Thus, the time between when the patient is operated on and when we discuss chronic pain allows the painful condition to establish itself, leading to central sensitization at the neurological level.” Once established, this pain is difficult to treat. “The later a patient arrives at a pain center, the more challenging the situation is to manage,” said Lebuffe.
 

Risk Factors

It is therefore crucial to identify patients at higher risk for postoperative pain during the anesthesia consultation, thus allowing for monitoring during the postoperative period. These pains can be highly debilitating because of their intensity, chronicity, and impact on quality of life.

To target these patients, it is essential to understand which surgeries and patient types constitute risk factors, as well as the characteristics of the pain experienced.

While all surgeries can lead to POCP, certain procedures are more likely to result in chronic pain. They include breast surgery with mastectomy, thoracic and spinal surgery, amputations, and knee replacement surgery. Notably, surgical repair of inguinal hernias, considered routine surgery, is emblematic of the risk for POCP. Its incidence after this procedure is 10% or more in the literature.

In addition, POCP often has neuropathic characteristics. Patients frequently describe their pain using terms like “burning” or “electric shock.” These pains are often associated with strange sensations such as tingling, prickling, itching, or numbness. “This describes neuropathic pain, which increases the risk of chronicity,” said Lebuffe.
 

Preoperative Opioid Use

Another warning sign for healthcare professionals is that patients with chronic pain may have factors associated with vulnerability. Women, who have a higher incidence of chronic pain syndrome, are at greater risk of developing postoperative chronic pain than men.

It has also been shown that preoperative opioid use leads to higher postoperative pain intensities for several days. This is a factor to consider, even though opioid consumption rates in France are far lower than those in the United States, where as much as 35% of patients use opioids preoperatively, said Frédéric Aubrun, head of the Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department and a pain management specialist at the Hospices Civils de Lyon in Lyon, France. Finally, significant literature indicates that psychological fragility is a risk factor for more intense acute pain and for POCP. “Patients with chronic pain frequently have depressive symptoms and anxiety,” said Lebuffe.
 

Involving General Practitioners

Because one responsibility of general practitioners is to identify patients with abnormal postoperative pain trajectories, the anesthesiologists at the press conference advocated for greater patient awareness and increased involvement of general practitioners in this identification process.

“If there is an expected duration of postoperative pain at varying intensities, since it all depends on the patient’s journey (the number of reoperations, history of opioid use, etc.), it is necessary to make patients aware that it is not normal to suffer long after a surgical intervention,” said Aubrun. In addition, it is important to “connect with primary care” and mobilize general practitioners to “detect patients sliding toward opioid overconsumption” and refer them to the appropriate care structure, he said.

Although dedicated facilities for this type of pain — like transitional pain clinics in Canada or northern Europe — do not exist in France, some hospitals, like Lille University Hospital, have established “intermediate consultations targeting patients with specific pain or chronicity characteristics. In these consultations, patients are systematically reviewed 4-6 weeks after surgery by the surgeon, who has been trained to identify neuropathic pain,” said Lebuffe. When a patient with such pain is identified, he or she is referred to an intermediate consultation and seen by a fellow anesthesiologist. The advantage of this consultation is that it is linked to a chronic pain structure. Consequently, frequent exchanges occur with the pain specialists involved in this structure, thus allowing for immediate optimization of pain treatments. The goal is to halt the process of central sensitization.

“We strongly believe in this type of transitional structure, even though it requires significant human resources,” said Lebuffe. He also called for a “societal reflection” on this issue because patients with chronic pain represent a significant cost to society, in terms of medications and work stoppages. Moreover, patients who are forced to stop working see their lives disrupted.
 

Managing POCP

When POCP with neuropathic characteristics has been diagnosed, specific treatments and techniques for chronic pain can be prescribed earlier than they currently are. “Systemic drug treatments for neuropathic POCP rely on various therapeutic classes (opioids, antidepressants, antiepileptics), which are not without side effects for the patient,” said Violaine D’ans, an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist at Polyclinique du Parc in Caen, France. Hence, the idea is to prescribe a minimal dose while providing the patient with techniques available to anesthesiologists. “We have a good range of management options that we use in perioperative pain management, and we have a role to play in radio- or CT-guided perinerve infiltrations, with continuous peripheral nerve blocks and possibly later with electrostimulation to help restore movement and avoid kinesiophobia.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Postoperative chronic pain (POCP) is common and is expected to become increasingly prevalent. This type of pain, however, which specifically arises following surgery, independent of any infection or surgical failure, remains poorly understood. Facilities dedicated to treating it are nearly nonexistent.

At the 2024 congress of the French Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation, anesthesiologists specializing in pain management advocated for improved management of POCP. They put themselves forward as essential interlocutors and actors in this effort. The anesthesiologists also called for better recognition of postoperative pain by patients, general practitioners, and surgeons to enable early intervention and reduce the risk for chronicity.
 

Underrecognized, Poorly Managed

POCP is defined as persistent pain lasting more than 3 months after surgery, unrelated to preoperative pain, and not associated with surgical complications. It can manifest in various forms, but the most typical scenario involves a patient complaining of persistent pain that developed following a surgical procedure. Normal radiological and biologic assessments rule out infectious complications. The persistence of pain long after surgery contrasts with what is often considered a successful surgical outcome by the surgeon.

“Of the 10 million patients operated on each year in France, it is estimated that about 10% will develop POCP, equating to 1.2 million patients,” explained Cyril Quémeneur, a specialist in anesthesiology and pain management at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, France.

Because of the increasing number of surgical interventions in recent years, POCP has become a major concern. “Currently, there are 275 facilities dedicated to chronic pain across the country, capable of accommodating between 300,000 and 400,000 patients. Given that knee replacement surgery — the incidence of which is rising sharply — results in postoperative pain for 20%-30% of operated patients, the question of managing this type of pain will become even more pressing in the future,” said Quémeneur.

Moreover, specialized facilities for transitional pain management are not widespread in France, unlike in Canada, which has been developing them for about a decade, he noted.

France’s pain treatment centers “are overwhelmed,” said Gilles Lebuffe, a specialist in anesthesiology and pain management at Lille University Hospital in Lille, France. “Thus, the time between when the patient is operated on and when we discuss chronic pain allows the painful condition to establish itself, leading to central sensitization at the neurological level.” Once established, this pain is difficult to treat. “The later a patient arrives at a pain center, the more challenging the situation is to manage,” said Lebuffe.
 

Risk Factors

It is therefore crucial to identify patients at higher risk for postoperative pain during the anesthesia consultation, thus allowing for monitoring during the postoperative period. These pains can be highly debilitating because of their intensity, chronicity, and impact on quality of life.

To target these patients, it is essential to understand which surgeries and patient types constitute risk factors, as well as the characteristics of the pain experienced.

While all surgeries can lead to POCP, certain procedures are more likely to result in chronic pain. They include breast surgery with mastectomy, thoracic and spinal surgery, amputations, and knee replacement surgery. Notably, surgical repair of inguinal hernias, considered routine surgery, is emblematic of the risk for POCP. Its incidence after this procedure is 10% or more in the literature.

In addition, POCP often has neuropathic characteristics. Patients frequently describe their pain using terms like “burning” or “electric shock.” These pains are often associated with strange sensations such as tingling, prickling, itching, or numbness. “This describes neuropathic pain, which increases the risk of chronicity,” said Lebuffe.
 

Preoperative Opioid Use

Another warning sign for healthcare professionals is that patients with chronic pain may have factors associated with vulnerability. Women, who have a higher incidence of chronic pain syndrome, are at greater risk of developing postoperative chronic pain than men.

It has also been shown that preoperative opioid use leads to higher postoperative pain intensities for several days. This is a factor to consider, even though opioid consumption rates in France are far lower than those in the United States, where as much as 35% of patients use opioids preoperatively, said Frédéric Aubrun, head of the Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department and a pain management specialist at the Hospices Civils de Lyon in Lyon, France. Finally, significant literature indicates that psychological fragility is a risk factor for more intense acute pain and for POCP. “Patients with chronic pain frequently have depressive symptoms and anxiety,” said Lebuffe.
 

Involving General Practitioners

Because one responsibility of general practitioners is to identify patients with abnormal postoperative pain trajectories, the anesthesiologists at the press conference advocated for greater patient awareness and increased involvement of general practitioners in this identification process.

“If there is an expected duration of postoperative pain at varying intensities, since it all depends on the patient’s journey (the number of reoperations, history of opioid use, etc.), it is necessary to make patients aware that it is not normal to suffer long after a surgical intervention,” said Aubrun. In addition, it is important to “connect with primary care” and mobilize general practitioners to “detect patients sliding toward opioid overconsumption” and refer them to the appropriate care structure, he said.

Although dedicated facilities for this type of pain — like transitional pain clinics in Canada or northern Europe — do not exist in France, some hospitals, like Lille University Hospital, have established “intermediate consultations targeting patients with specific pain or chronicity characteristics. In these consultations, patients are systematically reviewed 4-6 weeks after surgery by the surgeon, who has been trained to identify neuropathic pain,” said Lebuffe. When a patient with such pain is identified, he or she is referred to an intermediate consultation and seen by a fellow anesthesiologist. The advantage of this consultation is that it is linked to a chronic pain structure. Consequently, frequent exchanges occur with the pain specialists involved in this structure, thus allowing for immediate optimization of pain treatments. The goal is to halt the process of central sensitization.

“We strongly believe in this type of transitional structure, even though it requires significant human resources,” said Lebuffe. He also called for a “societal reflection” on this issue because patients with chronic pain represent a significant cost to society, in terms of medications and work stoppages. Moreover, patients who are forced to stop working see their lives disrupted.
 

Managing POCP

When POCP with neuropathic characteristics has been diagnosed, specific treatments and techniques for chronic pain can be prescribed earlier than they currently are. “Systemic drug treatments for neuropathic POCP rely on various therapeutic classes (opioids, antidepressants, antiepileptics), which are not without side effects for the patient,” said Violaine D’ans, an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist at Polyclinique du Parc in Caen, France. Hence, the idea is to prescribe a minimal dose while providing the patient with techniques available to anesthesiologists. “We have a good range of management options that we use in perioperative pain management, and we have a role to play in radio- or CT-guided perinerve infiltrations, with continuous peripheral nerve blocks and possibly later with electrostimulation to help restore movement and avoid kinesiophobia.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Postoperative chronic pain (POCP) is common and is expected to become increasingly prevalent. This type of pain, however, which specifically arises following surgery, independent of any infection or surgical failure, remains poorly understood. Facilities dedicated to treating it are nearly nonexistent.

At the 2024 congress of the French Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation, anesthesiologists specializing in pain management advocated for improved management of POCP. They put themselves forward as essential interlocutors and actors in this effort. The anesthesiologists also called for better recognition of postoperative pain by patients, general practitioners, and surgeons to enable early intervention and reduce the risk for chronicity.
 

Underrecognized, Poorly Managed

POCP is defined as persistent pain lasting more than 3 months after surgery, unrelated to preoperative pain, and not associated with surgical complications. It can manifest in various forms, but the most typical scenario involves a patient complaining of persistent pain that developed following a surgical procedure. Normal radiological and biologic assessments rule out infectious complications. The persistence of pain long after surgery contrasts with what is often considered a successful surgical outcome by the surgeon.

“Of the 10 million patients operated on each year in France, it is estimated that about 10% will develop POCP, equating to 1.2 million patients,” explained Cyril Quémeneur, a specialist in anesthesiology and pain management at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, France.

Because of the increasing number of surgical interventions in recent years, POCP has become a major concern. “Currently, there are 275 facilities dedicated to chronic pain across the country, capable of accommodating between 300,000 and 400,000 patients. Given that knee replacement surgery — the incidence of which is rising sharply — results in postoperative pain for 20%-30% of operated patients, the question of managing this type of pain will become even more pressing in the future,” said Quémeneur.

Moreover, specialized facilities for transitional pain management are not widespread in France, unlike in Canada, which has been developing them for about a decade, he noted.

France’s pain treatment centers “are overwhelmed,” said Gilles Lebuffe, a specialist in anesthesiology and pain management at Lille University Hospital in Lille, France. “Thus, the time between when the patient is operated on and when we discuss chronic pain allows the painful condition to establish itself, leading to central sensitization at the neurological level.” Once established, this pain is difficult to treat. “The later a patient arrives at a pain center, the more challenging the situation is to manage,” said Lebuffe.
 

Risk Factors

It is therefore crucial to identify patients at higher risk for postoperative pain during the anesthesia consultation, thus allowing for monitoring during the postoperative period. These pains can be highly debilitating because of their intensity, chronicity, and impact on quality of life.

To target these patients, it is essential to understand which surgeries and patient types constitute risk factors, as well as the characteristics of the pain experienced.

While all surgeries can lead to POCP, certain procedures are more likely to result in chronic pain. They include breast surgery with mastectomy, thoracic and spinal surgery, amputations, and knee replacement surgery. Notably, surgical repair of inguinal hernias, considered routine surgery, is emblematic of the risk for POCP. Its incidence after this procedure is 10% or more in the literature.

In addition, POCP often has neuropathic characteristics. Patients frequently describe their pain using terms like “burning” or “electric shock.” These pains are often associated with strange sensations such as tingling, prickling, itching, or numbness. “This describes neuropathic pain, which increases the risk of chronicity,” said Lebuffe.
 

Preoperative Opioid Use

Another warning sign for healthcare professionals is that patients with chronic pain may have factors associated with vulnerability. Women, who have a higher incidence of chronic pain syndrome, are at greater risk of developing postoperative chronic pain than men.

It has also been shown that preoperative opioid use leads to higher postoperative pain intensities for several days. This is a factor to consider, even though opioid consumption rates in France are far lower than those in the United States, where as much as 35% of patients use opioids preoperatively, said Frédéric Aubrun, head of the Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department and a pain management specialist at the Hospices Civils de Lyon in Lyon, France. Finally, significant literature indicates that psychological fragility is a risk factor for more intense acute pain and for POCP. “Patients with chronic pain frequently have depressive symptoms and anxiety,” said Lebuffe.
 

Involving General Practitioners

Because one responsibility of general practitioners is to identify patients with abnormal postoperative pain trajectories, the anesthesiologists at the press conference advocated for greater patient awareness and increased involvement of general practitioners in this identification process.

“If there is an expected duration of postoperative pain at varying intensities, since it all depends on the patient’s journey (the number of reoperations, history of opioid use, etc.), it is necessary to make patients aware that it is not normal to suffer long after a surgical intervention,” said Aubrun. In addition, it is important to “connect with primary care” and mobilize general practitioners to “detect patients sliding toward opioid overconsumption” and refer them to the appropriate care structure, he said.

Although dedicated facilities for this type of pain — like transitional pain clinics in Canada or northern Europe — do not exist in France, some hospitals, like Lille University Hospital, have established “intermediate consultations targeting patients with specific pain or chronicity characteristics. In these consultations, patients are systematically reviewed 4-6 weeks after surgery by the surgeon, who has been trained to identify neuropathic pain,” said Lebuffe. When a patient with such pain is identified, he or she is referred to an intermediate consultation and seen by a fellow anesthesiologist. The advantage of this consultation is that it is linked to a chronic pain structure. Consequently, frequent exchanges occur with the pain specialists involved in this structure, thus allowing for immediate optimization of pain treatments. The goal is to halt the process of central sensitization.

“We strongly believe in this type of transitional structure, even though it requires significant human resources,” said Lebuffe. He also called for a “societal reflection” on this issue because patients with chronic pain represent a significant cost to society, in terms of medications and work stoppages. Moreover, patients who are forced to stop working see their lives disrupted.
 

Managing POCP

When POCP with neuropathic characteristics has been diagnosed, specific treatments and techniques for chronic pain can be prescribed earlier than they currently are. “Systemic drug treatments for neuropathic POCP rely on various therapeutic classes (opioids, antidepressants, antiepileptics), which are not without side effects for the patient,” said Violaine D’ans, an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist at Polyclinique du Parc in Caen, France. Hence, the idea is to prescribe a minimal dose while providing the patient with techniques available to anesthesiologists. “We have a good range of management options that we use in perioperative pain management, and we have a role to play in radio- or CT-guided perinerve infiltrations, with continuous peripheral nerve blocks and possibly later with electrostimulation to help restore movement and avoid kinesiophobia.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In several countries, including China, Mexico, and the United States, the incidence of type 2 diabetes now exceeds that of type 1 diabetes among patients younger than 20 years.

“This is an emerging epidemic,” said Orit Pinhas-Hamiel, MD, director of the Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Unit at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, noting that these young patients, most with obesity, exhibit a significantly higher incidence of complications than adults with type 2 diabetes or young people with type 1 diabetes.

In 2017-2018, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among patients aged 15-19 years (19.7 per 100,000) surpassed that of type 1 diabetes (14.6 per 100,000), according to data from the United States.

“This is the first time that the incidence of type 2 diabetes has exceeded that of type 1 among youth,” said Pinhas-Hamiel. A review of 2021 published a few months ago highlighted this surge, with countries like China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Mexico leading the way.
 

SEARCH and TODAY

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, which was launched in 2000, is a multicenter observational study in the United States aimed at estimating the prevalence, incidence, and complications of types 1 and 2 diabetes among young patients. The Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study is an interventional study focusing on adolescents with type 2 diabetes to evaluate the effectiveness of various treatment options.

“Diabesity” — the dual global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes — has visible consequences from the moment of diagnosis, including hypertension. In the TODAY study, 11.6% adolescents had hypertension at diagnosis. A study conducted in Hong Kong involving 391 children younger than 18 years revealed that 22.5% had hypertension. In SEARCH, 27% young patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for 1.5 years had hypertension.

In addition, the SEARCH study found that 27% young individuals had low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, while 25% had high triglyceride levels, at 1.5 years after diagnosis.

Overall, the cumulative incidence of long-term diabetic complications was assessed in 500 adolescents participating in TODAY (mean age, 26.4 ± 2.8 years; mean time since diagnosis, 13.3 ± 1.8 years). The initial prevalence was 19.2%, while the cumulative incidence rose to 67.5% after 15 years of follow-up.

For dyslipidemia, the initial prevalence was 20.8%, with a cumulative incidence of 51.6%. The incidence of diabetic nephropathy was 54.8% and neuropathies was 32.4%. The prevalence of retinopathy was 13.7% for the period 2010-2011 and 51% for 2017-2018.

At least one complication was observed in 60.1% participants and at least two in 28.4%. As expected, risk factors for developing complications included belonging to a racial or ethnic minority, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

“Among those who developed type 2 diabetes in adolescence, the risk for complications, including microvascular complications, has continuously increased and affected most participants in young adulthood,” said Pinhas-Hamiel.

At the same time, the rate of treatment with lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications remains low among young people with type 2 diabetes. The management of dyslipidemia is suboptimal, with only 5% young patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia receiving appropriate medications. Furthermore, treatment adherence is lacking. In the TODAY cohort, for example, only one third of participants with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were on lipid-lowering medications, and only half of the young patients with hypertension were taking antihypertensives.
 

Focus on Diabetic Nephropathy

Diabetic kidney disease is the leading microvascular complication of type 2 diabetes in adolescents. It is associated with rapid progression and poor prognosis. The natural history begins with hyperfiltration: A consequence of obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. Structural renal changes can be detected as early as 1.5 years after diagnosis.

The second stage is characterized by a reduction in the glomerular filtration rate. At this stage, “the structural changes in the kidney are typical but often present,” said Pinhas-Hamiel, making this period critical for reducing risk factors.

In TODAY, the cumulative incidence of diabetic nephropathy was 54.8%. The prevalence at inclusion was 8%. In SEARCH, after 8 years, the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease was 19.9% among adolescents with type 2 diabetes vs 5.8% among those with type 1 diabetes. A pre-analysis revealed that the overall prevalence of macroalbuminuria among 730 children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes was 3.8%. The ages at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes ranged from 6.5 to 21 years, and the duration of the disease varied from diagnosis to 15 years after.

Diabetic retinopathy was present in 50% participants in the TODAY study at age 25 years (ie, after 12 years of disease). In SEARCH, 56% young patients had diabetic retinopathy after 12.5 years of diabetes. In addition, in the same study, the prevalence of peripheral neuropathy, assessed after 8 years, was 22% among adolescents with type 2 diabetes vs 7% among those with type 1 diabetes.
 

Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

A decrease in heart rate variability was observed in 47% young patients with type 2 diabetes after an average disease duration of only 1.7 years. In SEARCH, the prevalence of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, assessed after 8 years of disease, was 17% in adolescents with type 2 diabetes versus 12% in those with type 1 diabetes.

Overall, 7.1% participants had three complications: nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. The cumulative incidence of microvascular complications was 80%.

Moreover, A1c levels deteriorated progressively throughout the follow-up period. Approximately 45% participants had an A1c of at least 10%, and 20% were between 8% and 10%. Body mass index consistently remained between 35 and 37.5.

Young patients with type 2 diabetes exhibit endothelial dysfunction, increased carotid intima-media thickness, elevated arterial stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and reduced maximal exercise capacity. All these factors predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

In TODAY, 17 serious cardiovascular events were recorded, including four myocardial infarctions, six cases of congestive heart failure, three coronary events, and four strokes.

In an analysis of the TODAY and SEARCH studies, although the average duration of diabetes was similar, complications were more frequent among young patients with type 2 diabetes than among those with type 1 diabetes. Microvascular complications were 2.5 times more frequent, and macrovascular complications were four times more frequent.

In SEARCH, excessive mortality was observed among young adults for each type of diabetes. Differences in risk were associated with diabetes type, age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Mortality ratios were 1.5 and 2.3 for types 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively.

Women had higher mortality rates than men. Diabetes was the underlying cause of death in 9.1% cases, which was comparable to cardiovascular diseases or cancer (10.9%). According to a life expectancy model, young patients with type 2 diabetes lose about 15 years of life.
 

Eating Disorders and Depression

Beyond these complications, other issues are often present among adolescents with type 2 diabetes. Approximately 50% have eating disorders (compared with 21% among those with type 1 diabetes), 19.3% report depressive symptoms, and 18.9% have expressed thoughts of self-harm. In addition, 19.6% have polycystic ovary syndrome. Z-scores for bone mineral density at the femoral neck and lumbar spine were significantly lower in adolescents with type 2 diabetes than in healthy peers. The presence of metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease is also more pronounced.

“The recent approvals of new pharmacological interventions for weight loss and improved glycemic control in adolescents offer hope. We hope that, over the next decade, the prevalence of complications among these young patients with type 2 diabetes will decline. In the meantime, a proactive approach is essential to prevent complications related to type 2 diabetes in these youth,” Pinhas-Hamiel concluded.

For more information, see ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents.

Pinhas-Hamiel reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In several countries, including China, Mexico, and the United States, the incidence of type 2 diabetes now exceeds that of type 1 diabetes among patients younger than 20 years.

“This is an emerging epidemic,” said Orit Pinhas-Hamiel, MD, director of the Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Unit at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, noting that these young patients, most with obesity, exhibit a significantly higher incidence of complications than adults with type 2 diabetes or young people with type 1 diabetes.

In 2017-2018, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among patients aged 15-19 years (19.7 per 100,000) surpassed that of type 1 diabetes (14.6 per 100,000), according to data from the United States.

“This is the first time that the incidence of type 2 diabetes has exceeded that of type 1 among youth,” said Pinhas-Hamiel. A review of 2021 published a few months ago highlighted this surge, with countries like China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Mexico leading the way.
 

SEARCH and TODAY

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, which was launched in 2000, is a multicenter observational study in the United States aimed at estimating the prevalence, incidence, and complications of types 1 and 2 diabetes among young patients. The Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study is an interventional study focusing on adolescents with type 2 diabetes to evaluate the effectiveness of various treatment options.

“Diabesity” — the dual global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes — has visible consequences from the moment of diagnosis, including hypertension. In the TODAY study, 11.6% adolescents had hypertension at diagnosis. A study conducted in Hong Kong involving 391 children younger than 18 years revealed that 22.5% had hypertension. In SEARCH, 27% young patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for 1.5 years had hypertension.

In addition, the SEARCH study found that 27% young individuals had low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, while 25% had high triglyceride levels, at 1.5 years after diagnosis.

Overall, the cumulative incidence of long-term diabetic complications was assessed in 500 adolescents participating in TODAY (mean age, 26.4 ± 2.8 years; mean time since diagnosis, 13.3 ± 1.8 years). The initial prevalence was 19.2%, while the cumulative incidence rose to 67.5% after 15 years of follow-up.

For dyslipidemia, the initial prevalence was 20.8%, with a cumulative incidence of 51.6%. The incidence of diabetic nephropathy was 54.8% and neuropathies was 32.4%. The prevalence of retinopathy was 13.7% for the period 2010-2011 and 51% for 2017-2018.

At least one complication was observed in 60.1% participants and at least two in 28.4%. As expected, risk factors for developing complications included belonging to a racial or ethnic minority, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

“Among those who developed type 2 diabetes in adolescence, the risk for complications, including microvascular complications, has continuously increased and affected most participants in young adulthood,” said Pinhas-Hamiel.

At the same time, the rate of treatment with lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications remains low among young people with type 2 diabetes. The management of dyslipidemia is suboptimal, with only 5% young patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia receiving appropriate medications. Furthermore, treatment adherence is lacking. In the TODAY cohort, for example, only one third of participants with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were on lipid-lowering medications, and only half of the young patients with hypertension were taking antihypertensives.
 

Focus on Diabetic Nephropathy

Diabetic kidney disease is the leading microvascular complication of type 2 diabetes in adolescents. It is associated with rapid progression and poor prognosis. The natural history begins with hyperfiltration: A consequence of obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. Structural renal changes can be detected as early as 1.5 years after diagnosis.

The second stage is characterized by a reduction in the glomerular filtration rate. At this stage, “the structural changes in the kidney are typical but often present,” said Pinhas-Hamiel, making this period critical for reducing risk factors.

In TODAY, the cumulative incidence of diabetic nephropathy was 54.8%. The prevalence at inclusion was 8%. In SEARCH, after 8 years, the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease was 19.9% among adolescents with type 2 diabetes vs 5.8% among those with type 1 diabetes. A pre-analysis revealed that the overall prevalence of macroalbuminuria among 730 children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes was 3.8%. The ages at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes ranged from 6.5 to 21 years, and the duration of the disease varied from diagnosis to 15 years after.

Diabetic retinopathy was present in 50% participants in the TODAY study at age 25 years (ie, after 12 years of disease). In SEARCH, 56% young patients had diabetic retinopathy after 12.5 years of diabetes. In addition, in the same study, the prevalence of peripheral neuropathy, assessed after 8 years, was 22% among adolescents with type 2 diabetes vs 7% among those with type 1 diabetes.
 

Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

A decrease in heart rate variability was observed in 47% young patients with type 2 diabetes after an average disease duration of only 1.7 years. In SEARCH, the prevalence of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, assessed after 8 years of disease, was 17% in adolescents with type 2 diabetes versus 12% in those with type 1 diabetes.

Overall, 7.1% participants had three complications: nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. The cumulative incidence of microvascular complications was 80%.

Moreover, A1c levels deteriorated progressively throughout the follow-up period. Approximately 45% participants had an A1c of at least 10%, and 20% were between 8% and 10%. Body mass index consistently remained between 35 and 37.5.

Young patients with type 2 diabetes exhibit endothelial dysfunction, increased carotid intima-media thickness, elevated arterial stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and reduced maximal exercise capacity. All these factors predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

In TODAY, 17 serious cardiovascular events were recorded, including four myocardial infarctions, six cases of congestive heart failure, three coronary events, and four strokes.

In an analysis of the TODAY and SEARCH studies, although the average duration of diabetes was similar, complications were more frequent among young patients with type 2 diabetes than among those with type 1 diabetes. Microvascular complications were 2.5 times more frequent, and macrovascular complications were four times more frequent.

In SEARCH, excessive mortality was observed among young adults for each type of diabetes. Differences in risk were associated with diabetes type, age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Mortality ratios were 1.5 and 2.3 for types 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively.

Women had higher mortality rates than men. Diabetes was the underlying cause of death in 9.1% cases, which was comparable to cardiovascular diseases or cancer (10.9%). According to a life expectancy model, young patients with type 2 diabetes lose about 15 years of life.
 

Eating Disorders and Depression

Beyond these complications, other issues are often present among adolescents with type 2 diabetes. Approximately 50% have eating disorders (compared with 21% among those with type 1 diabetes), 19.3% report depressive symptoms, and 18.9% have expressed thoughts of self-harm. In addition, 19.6% have polycystic ovary syndrome. Z-scores for bone mineral density at the femoral neck and lumbar spine were significantly lower in adolescents with type 2 diabetes than in healthy peers. The presence of metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease is also more pronounced.

“The recent approvals of new pharmacological interventions for weight loss and improved glycemic control in adolescents offer hope. We hope that, over the next decade, the prevalence of complications among these young patients with type 2 diabetes will decline. In the meantime, a proactive approach is essential to prevent complications related to type 2 diabetes in these youth,” Pinhas-Hamiel concluded.

For more information, see ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents.

Pinhas-Hamiel reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In several countries, including China, Mexico, and the United States, the incidence of type 2 diabetes now exceeds that of type 1 diabetes among patients younger than 20 years.

“This is an emerging epidemic,” said Orit Pinhas-Hamiel, MD, director of the Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Unit at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, noting that these young patients, most with obesity, exhibit a significantly higher incidence of complications than adults with type 2 diabetes or young people with type 1 diabetes.

In 2017-2018, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among patients aged 15-19 years (19.7 per 100,000) surpassed that of type 1 diabetes (14.6 per 100,000), according to data from the United States.

“This is the first time that the incidence of type 2 diabetes has exceeded that of type 1 among youth,” said Pinhas-Hamiel. A review of 2021 published a few months ago highlighted this surge, with countries like China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Mexico leading the way.
 

SEARCH and TODAY

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study, which was launched in 2000, is a multicenter observational study in the United States aimed at estimating the prevalence, incidence, and complications of types 1 and 2 diabetes among young patients. The Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study is an interventional study focusing on adolescents with type 2 diabetes to evaluate the effectiveness of various treatment options.

“Diabesity” — the dual global epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes — has visible consequences from the moment of diagnosis, including hypertension. In the TODAY study, 11.6% adolescents had hypertension at diagnosis. A study conducted in Hong Kong involving 391 children younger than 18 years revealed that 22.5% had hypertension. In SEARCH, 27% young patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for 1.5 years had hypertension.

In addition, the SEARCH study found that 27% young individuals had low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, while 25% had high triglyceride levels, at 1.5 years after diagnosis.

Overall, the cumulative incidence of long-term diabetic complications was assessed in 500 adolescents participating in TODAY (mean age, 26.4 ± 2.8 years; mean time since diagnosis, 13.3 ± 1.8 years). The initial prevalence was 19.2%, while the cumulative incidence rose to 67.5% after 15 years of follow-up.

For dyslipidemia, the initial prevalence was 20.8%, with a cumulative incidence of 51.6%. The incidence of diabetic nephropathy was 54.8% and neuropathies was 32.4%. The prevalence of retinopathy was 13.7% for the period 2010-2011 and 51% for 2017-2018.

At least one complication was observed in 60.1% participants and at least two in 28.4%. As expected, risk factors for developing complications included belonging to a racial or ethnic minority, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

“Among those who developed type 2 diabetes in adolescence, the risk for complications, including microvascular complications, has continuously increased and affected most participants in young adulthood,” said Pinhas-Hamiel.

At the same time, the rate of treatment with lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications remains low among young people with type 2 diabetes. The management of dyslipidemia is suboptimal, with only 5% young patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia receiving appropriate medications. Furthermore, treatment adherence is lacking. In the TODAY cohort, for example, only one third of participants with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were on lipid-lowering medications, and only half of the young patients with hypertension were taking antihypertensives.
 

Focus on Diabetic Nephropathy

Diabetic kidney disease is the leading microvascular complication of type 2 diabetes in adolescents. It is associated with rapid progression and poor prognosis. The natural history begins with hyperfiltration: A consequence of obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. Structural renal changes can be detected as early as 1.5 years after diagnosis.

The second stage is characterized by a reduction in the glomerular filtration rate. At this stage, “the structural changes in the kidney are typical but often present,” said Pinhas-Hamiel, making this period critical for reducing risk factors.

In TODAY, the cumulative incidence of diabetic nephropathy was 54.8%. The prevalence at inclusion was 8%. In SEARCH, after 8 years, the prevalence of diabetic kidney disease was 19.9% among adolescents with type 2 diabetes vs 5.8% among those with type 1 diabetes. A pre-analysis revealed that the overall prevalence of macroalbuminuria among 730 children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes was 3.8%. The ages at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes ranged from 6.5 to 21 years, and the duration of the disease varied from diagnosis to 15 years after.

Diabetic retinopathy was present in 50% participants in the TODAY study at age 25 years (ie, after 12 years of disease). In SEARCH, 56% young patients had diabetic retinopathy after 12.5 years of diabetes. In addition, in the same study, the prevalence of peripheral neuropathy, assessed after 8 years, was 22% among adolescents with type 2 diabetes vs 7% among those with type 1 diabetes.
 

Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy

A decrease in heart rate variability was observed in 47% young patients with type 2 diabetes after an average disease duration of only 1.7 years. In SEARCH, the prevalence of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, assessed after 8 years of disease, was 17% in adolescents with type 2 diabetes versus 12% in those with type 1 diabetes.

Overall, 7.1% participants had three complications: nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. The cumulative incidence of microvascular complications was 80%.

Moreover, A1c levels deteriorated progressively throughout the follow-up period. Approximately 45% participants had an A1c of at least 10%, and 20% were between 8% and 10%. Body mass index consistently remained between 35 and 37.5.

Young patients with type 2 diabetes exhibit endothelial dysfunction, increased carotid intima-media thickness, elevated arterial stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and reduced maximal exercise capacity. All these factors predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

In TODAY, 17 serious cardiovascular events were recorded, including four myocardial infarctions, six cases of congestive heart failure, three coronary events, and four strokes.

In an analysis of the TODAY and SEARCH studies, although the average duration of diabetes was similar, complications were more frequent among young patients with type 2 diabetes than among those with type 1 diabetes. Microvascular complications were 2.5 times more frequent, and macrovascular complications were four times more frequent.

In SEARCH, excessive mortality was observed among young adults for each type of diabetes. Differences in risk were associated with diabetes type, age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Mortality ratios were 1.5 and 2.3 for types 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively.

Women had higher mortality rates than men. Diabetes was the underlying cause of death in 9.1% cases, which was comparable to cardiovascular diseases or cancer (10.9%). According to a life expectancy model, young patients with type 2 diabetes lose about 15 years of life.
 

Eating Disorders and Depression

Beyond these complications, other issues are often present among adolescents with type 2 diabetes. Approximately 50% have eating disorders (compared with 21% among those with type 1 diabetes), 19.3% report depressive symptoms, and 18.9% have expressed thoughts of self-harm. In addition, 19.6% have polycystic ovary syndrome. Z-scores for bone mineral density at the femoral neck and lumbar spine were significantly lower in adolescents with type 2 diabetes than in healthy peers. The presence of metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease is also more pronounced.

“The recent approvals of new pharmacological interventions for weight loss and improved glycemic control in adolescents offer hope. We hope that, over the next decade, the prevalence of complications among these young patients with type 2 diabetes will decline. In the meantime, a proactive approach is essential to prevent complications related to type 2 diabetes in these youth,” Pinhas-Hamiel concluded.

For more information, see ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2022: Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents.

Pinhas-Hamiel reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA – The investigational monoclonal antibody nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) is associated with significant improvement in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) over a 24-week period, according to topline results from the phase 3 VIVACITY-MG3 study.

The VIVACITY-MG3 trial is the first registrational study of a neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) blocker to show sustained efficacy through 6 months of fixed schedule dosing.

Lead investigator Tuan Vu, MD, professor of neurology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, presented the findings at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. 
 

Autoantibody Depletion

FcRN plays a crucial role in the transport of immunoglobulin G. Blocking it can reduce circulating immunoglobulin G antibodies, including pathogenic gMG autoantibodies. 

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 196 adults with a broad range of seropositive gMG – who account for approximately 95% of the gMG patient population – and 42 seronegative patients.

The mean age was 52 years, 92% were female, and 63% were White. The mean disease duration was about 8 years. Among seropositive patients, 87.6% were acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive (AChR+), 10.5% were muscle-specific kinase autoantibody-positive (MuSK+), and 2% were low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 antibody positive.

They were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either nipocalimab IV plus standard of care, or placebo plus standard of care for 24 weeks. A total of 87 patients in the nipocalimab arm and 82 in the placebo arm completed the study.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score. Participants treated with nipocalimab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of 4.70 points from baseline, compared to the 3.25-point improvement in those treated with placebo (P =.002). 
 

Clinically Meaningful Changes?

“For someone living with gMG, a 1 to 2-point improvement on MG-ADL may be the difference between normal eating and frequent choking on food, or shortness of breath at rest and being on a ventilator,” the drug’s manufacturer noted in a release. 

Secondary endpoints were also better in the nipocalimab group, compared with participants on placebo. Specifically, on the 13-item clinician assessed Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis disease severity score, patients who received nipocalimab had an average reduction of 4.86 points from baseline compared to a reduction of 2.05 points in the placebo arm (P <.001). 

Similarly, MG-ADL response (defined as ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline) was significantly greater in the nipocalimab versus placebo arms (68.8% vs 52.6%; P =.021).

Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for the different types of seropositive patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in results for seronegative patients treated with nipocalimab versus placebo.

“The drug was pretty well tolerated and there was little difference, other than more patients with muscle spasm in the nipocalimab group (12.2% vs 3.1%),” said Vu. 

In addition, peripheral edema occurred in 11.2% of the nipocalimab group and none of the placebo-treated patients. Cholesterol levels were also higher in the nipocalimab arm, but there were no cardiac side effects, he added.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting on the findings, Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, was encouraged.

“It’s a phase 3 trial, it’s positive, which is great, so it’ll be another drug on the market, another option for our patients,” she said. However, she cautioned, “their placebo arm did better than most placebos, so I think the delta is not as robust, but it was still statistically significant.” 

Goyal noted that, if approved, nipocalimab will be the third FcRn inhibitor in the MG field, preceded by efgartigimod (Vyvgart), which is approved for AChR antibody-positive disease, and rozanolixizumab-noli (Rystiggo) which is approved for both for AChR and MUSK antibody positive disease. 

“Its target of action is similar to the two drugs that are already on the market, but one thing that is unique about nipocalimab is that it is continuous dosing versus the other two medications that are given cyclically,” she said. 

“The reason that’s an upside, is that with cyclical dosing, patients have a return of symptoms. We treat, they get better, and then they get worse. That’s very disconcerting to patients. So, they want to be treated continuously.”

Additionally, she said there are some early data suggesting its safety in pregnancy.

Vu disclosed he is the USF Site Principal Investigator for MG clinical trials sponsored by Alexion/ AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Amgen, argenx, Cartesian Therapeutics, COUR Pharmaceuticals, Dianthus Therapeutics, Immunovant, Johnson & Johnson, NMD Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, and has served as a speaker for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, and CSL Behring. He performs consulting work for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, Dianthus Therapeutics, ImmunAbs, and UCB. Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Janssen. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA – The investigational monoclonal antibody nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) is associated with significant improvement in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) over a 24-week period, according to topline results from the phase 3 VIVACITY-MG3 study.

The VIVACITY-MG3 trial is the first registrational study of a neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) blocker to show sustained efficacy through 6 months of fixed schedule dosing.

Lead investigator Tuan Vu, MD, professor of neurology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, presented the findings at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. 
 

Autoantibody Depletion

FcRN plays a crucial role in the transport of immunoglobulin G. Blocking it can reduce circulating immunoglobulin G antibodies, including pathogenic gMG autoantibodies. 

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 196 adults with a broad range of seropositive gMG – who account for approximately 95% of the gMG patient population – and 42 seronegative patients.

The mean age was 52 years, 92% were female, and 63% were White. The mean disease duration was about 8 years. Among seropositive patients, 87.6% were acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive (AChR+), 10.5% were muscle-specific kinase autoantibody-positive (MuSK+), and 2% were low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 antibody positive.

They were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either nipocalimab IV plus standard of care, or placebo plus standard of care for 24 weeks. A total of 87 patients in the nipocalimab arm and 82 in the placebo arm completed the study.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score. Participants treated with nipocalimab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of 4.70 points from baseline, compared to the 3.25-point improvement in those treated with placebo (P =.002). 
 

Clinically Meaningful Changes?

“For someone living with gMG, a 1 to 2-point improvement on MG-ADL may be the difference between normal eating and frequent choking on food, or shortness of breath at rest and being on a ventilator,” the drug’s manufacturer noted in a release. 

Secondary endpoints were also better in the nipocalimab group, compared with participants on placebo. Specifically, on the 13-item clinician assessed Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis disease severity score, patients who received nipocalimab had an average reduction of 4.86 points from baseline compared to a reduction of 2.05 points in the placebo arm (P <.001). 

Similarly, MG-ADL response (defined as ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline) was significantly greater in the nipocalimab versus placebo arms (68.8% vs 52.6%; P =.021).

Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for the different types of seropositive patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in results for seronegative patients treated with nipocalimab versus placebo.

“The drug was pretty well tolerated and there was little difference, other than more patients with muscle spasm in the nipocalimab group (12.2% vs 3.1%),” said Vu. 

In addition, peripheral edema occurred in 11.2% of the nipocalimab group and none of the placebo-treated patients. Cholesterol levels were also higher in the nipocalimab arm, but there were no cardiac side effects, he added.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting on the findings, Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, was encouraged.

“It’s a phase 3 trial, it’s positive, which is great, so it’ll be another drug on the market, another option for our patients,” she said. However, she cautioned, “their placebo arm did better than most placebos, so I think the delta is not as robust, but it was still statistically significant.” 

Goyal noted that, if approved, nipocalimab will be the third FcRn inhibitor in the MG field, preceded by efgartigimod (Vyvgart), which is approved for AChR antibody-positive disease, and rozanolixizumab-noli (Rystiggo) which is approved for both for AChR and MUSK antibody positive disease. 

“Its target of action is similar to the two drugs that are already on the market, but one thing that is unique about nipocalimab is that it is continuous dosing versus the other two medications that are given cyclically,” she said. 

“The reason that’s an upside, is that with cyclical dosing, patients have a return of symptoms. We treat, they get better, and then they get worse. That’s very disconcerting to patients. So, they want to be treated continuously.”

Additionally, she said there are some early data suggesting its safety in pregnancy.

Vu disclosed he is the USF Site Principal Investigator for MG clinical trials sponsored by Alexion/ AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Amgen, argenx, Cartesian Therapeutics, COUR Pharmaceuticals, Dianthus Therapeutics, Immunovant, Johnson & Johnson, NMD Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, and has served as a speaker for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, and CSL Behring. He performs consulting work for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, Dianthus Therapeutics, ImmunAbs, and UCB. Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Janssen. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA – The investigational monoclonal antibody nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) is associated with significant improvement in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) over a 24-week period, according to topline results from the phase 3 VIVACITY-MG3 study.

The VIVACITY-MG3 trial is the first registrational study of a neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) blocker to show sustained efficacy through 6 months of fixed schedule dosing.

Lead investigator Tuan Vu, MD, professor of neurology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, presented the findings at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. 
 

Autoantibody Depletion

FcRN plays a crucial role in the transport of immunoglobulin G. Blocking it can reduce circulating immunoglobulin G antibodies, including pathogenic gMG autoantibodies. 

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 196 adults with a broad range of seropositive gMG – who account for approximately 95% of the gMG patient population – and 42 seronegative patients.

The mean age was 52 years, 92% were female, and 63% were White. The mean disease duration was about 8 years. Among seropositive patients, 87.6% were acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive (AChR+), 10.5% were muscle-specific kinase autoantibody-positive (MuSK+), and 2% were low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 antibody positive.

They were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either nipocalimab IV plus standard of care, or placebo plus standard of care for 24 weeks. A total of 87 patients in the nipocalimab arm and 82 in the placebo arm completed the study.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score. Participants treated with nipocalimab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of 4.70 points from baseline, compared to the 3.25-point improvement in those treated with placebo (P =.002). 
 

Clinically Meaningful Changes?

“For someone living with gMG, a 1 to 2-point improvement on MG-ADL may be the difference between normal eating and frequent choking on food, or shortness of breath at rest and being on a ventilator,” the drug’s manufacturer noted in a release. 

Secondary endpoints were also better in the nipocalimab group, compared with participants on placebo. Specifically, on the 13-item clinician assessed Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis disease severity score, patients who received nipocalimab had an average reduction of 4.86 points from baseline compared to a reduction of 2.05 points in the placebo arm (P <.001). 

Similarly, MG-ADL response (defined as ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline) was significantly greater in the nipocalimab versus placebo arms (68.8% vs 52.6%; P =.021).

Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for the different types of seropositive patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in results for seronegative patients treated with nipocalimab versus placebo.

“The drug was pretty well tolerated and there was little difference, other than more patients with muscle spasm in the nipocalimab group (12.2% vs 3.1%),” said Vu. 

In addition, peripheral edema occurred in 11.2% of the nipocalimab group and none of the placebo-treated patients. Cholesterol levels were also higher in the nipocalimab arm, but there were no cardiac side effects, he added.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting on the findings, Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, was encouraged.

“It’s a phase 3 trial, it’s positive, which is great, so it’ll be another drug on the market, another option for our patients,” she said. However, she cautioned, “their placebo arm did better than most placebos, so I think the delta is not as robust, but it was still statistically significant.” 

Goyal noted that, if approved, nipocalimab will be the third FcRn inhibitor in the MG field, preceded by efgartigimod (Vyvgart), which is approved for AChR antibody-positive disease, and rozanolixizumab-noli (Rystiggo) which is approved for both for AChR and MUSK antibody positive disease. 

“Its target of action is similar to the two drugs that are already on the market, but one thing that is unique about nipocalimab is that it is continuous dosing versus the other two medications that are given cyclically,” she said. 

“The reason that’s an upside, is that with cyclical dosing, patients have a return of symptoms. We treat, they get better, and then they get worse. That’s very disconcerting to patients. So, they want to be treated continuously.”

Additionally, she said there are some early data suggesting its safety in pregnancy.

Vu disclosed he is the USF Site Principal Investigator for MG clinical trials sponsored by Alexion/ AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Amgen, argenx, Cartesian Therapeutics, COUR Pharmaceuticals, Dianthus Therapeutics, Immunovant, Johnson & Johnson, NMD Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, and has served as a speaker for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, and CSL Behring. He performs consulting work for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, Dianthus Therapeutics, ImmunAbs, and UCB. Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Janssen. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Inebilizumab, a first-in-class anti-CD19 B-cell depleting agent, demonstrated both safety and superior efficacy compared with placebo in patients with seropositive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), new phase 3 data showed.

“Based on these results, we have demonstrated that targeting B cells, including the antibody-secreting cells, is beneficial, and there is likely a role for this kind of therapeutic strategy for patients with myasthenia gravis,” said senior investigator Richard Nowak, MD.

The findings were published and presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Largest Cohort of Muscle-Specific Kinase (MuSK) Antibody–Positive Disease

The Myasthenia Gravis INebilizumab Trial study enrolled 238 participants, 60.8% women, mean age 47.5 years, from 79 sites in 18 countries. The participants were divided into two cohorts: 190 acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibody–positive patients and 48 MuSK autoantibody–positive patients.

“This is the largest enrolled cohort of MuSK antibody–positive disease in a placebo-controlled trial to date,” said Nowak, director of the Yale Myasthenia Gravis Clinic and associate professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut.

Both groups had similar gMG duration (mean 6.7 and 5.2 years for AChR+ and MuSK+ patients, respectively) and disease severity based on Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) baseline score. In addition, more than 80% of participants were on a prednisone equivalent dose greater than 5 mg daily at study entry.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (IV) inebilizumab or IV placebo for 52 weeks (AChR+ group) or 26 weeks (MuSK+ group). In addition, study participants who were taking corticosteroids were tapered down starting at week 4 to prednisone 5 mg per day by week 24.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant change from baseline in MG-ADL and with a reduction of 4.2 points for inebilizumab versus 2.2 for placebo (P < .0001) at week 26 for the combined study population.

“You can see that the trend is actually going toward separation of the two groups after week 8 in the combined population,” said Nowak. Key secondary endpoints also showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful change from baseline compared with placebo.

This included a statistically significant change in QMG score inebilizumab compared with placebo for the combined population, a reduction of 4.8 versus 2.3 points, respectively, at week 26 (P = .0002).

In addition, both MG-ADL and QMG scores in the AChR+ subgroup were superior for inebilizumab versus placebo at week 26, with reductions of 4.2 versus 2.4, and 4.4 versus 2.0; P = .0015 and P = .0011, respectively.

In the MuSK+ subgroup, inebilizumab-treated patients had better MG-ADL scores than placebo-treated patients, with reductions of 3.9 versus 1.7 points, respectively, at week 26, although this difference did not meet statistical significance.

“There were no increased safety incidents in the inebilizumab-treated patients versus placebo, and a similar percentage of safety incidents in the AChR–positive and MuSK–positive groups. There were three deaths reported, all likely related to myasthenic crisis,” he said.

Nowak said that inebilizumab is “unique from the other currently FDA-approved medications for myasthenia gravis in that it’s targeting the upstream immunopathogenic mechanism of disease, specifically B cells — and B cells that are actually antibody-secreting cells.”

“It is targeting the factories of autoantibody production, whereas an FcRn antagonist, for example, is not targeting those factories but rather targeting what’s being produced — the immunoglobulins, IgGs in general,” he added.

Nowak said that what is particularly exciting about the drug is that the schedule is not very frequent. It begins with an initial IV infusion, followed by a second infusion 2 weeks later and a third infusion 6 months after that, so that patients are treated approximately every 6 months. This is in contrast to some other targeted therapies, where failing to address the underlying factors driving immunopathogenesis necessitates more regular and frequent medication administration.
 

New, Novel, Exciting

Commenting on the research, Neelam Goyal, MD, who chaired the session, said, “It’s definitely new, novel, interesting, exciting.”

Goyal, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, also noted that while B-cell depletion has shown some previous success in MG, it was with rituximab, a CD20 B-cell depleting agent.

She noted that unlike rituximab, which targets CD20, inebilizumab targets CD19, although both medications lead to B-cell depletion. Rituximab has proven effective for MUSK–positive MG, which accounts for approximately 5% of cases.

However, Goyal noted that the results for AChR–positive MG have been mixed — “the BeatMG trial was negative and the RINOMAX trial was positive. So, I think this is really interesting. It is exciting, and this drug is already on the market.”

She added that although inebilizumab is already US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica, it still faces approval and indication hurdles for MG.

The future of this drug in the management algorithm for MG remains uncertain. Goyal noted that it’s “quite costly,” and although its benefits are evident — particularly for FcRn and complement inhibitors — some early data from chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studies appear significantly more impressive.

Nowak disclosed research support from the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Annexon Biosciences, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), Immunovant, Grifols, S.A., and Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics (now Amgen). Served as a consultant and advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Cabaletta Bio, Cour Pharmaceuticals, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), Immunovant, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), and Viela Bio (Horizon Therapeutics, now Amgen).

Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory, or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Amgen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Inebilizumab, a first-in-class anti-CD19 B-cell depleting agent, demonstrated both safety and superior efficacy compared with placebo in patients with seropositive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), new phase 3 data showed.

“Based on these results, we have demonstrated that targeting B cells, including the antibody-secreting cells, is beneficial, and there is likely a role for this kind of therapeutic strategy for patients with myasthenia gravis,” said senior investigator Richard Nowak, MD.

The findings were published and presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Largest Cohort of Muscle-Specific Kinase (MuSK) Antibody–Positive Disease

The Myasthenia Gravis INebilizumab Trial study enrolled 238 participants, 60.8% women, mean age 47.5 years, from 79 sites in 18 countries. The participants were divided into two cohorts: 190 acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibody–positive patients and 48 MuSK autoantibody–positive patients.

“This is the largest enrolled cohort of MuSK antibody–positive disease in a placebo-controlled trial to date,” said Nowak, director of the Yale Myasthenia Gravis Clinic and associate professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut.

Both groups had similar gMG duration (mean 6.7 and 5.2 years for AChR+ and MuSK+ patients, respectively) and disease severity based on Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) baseline score. In addition, more than 80% of participants were on a prednisone equivalent dose greater than 5 mg daily at study entry.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (IV) inebilizumab or IV placebo for 52 weeks (AChR+ group) or 26 weeks (MuSK+ group). In addition, study participants who were taking corticosteroids were tapered down starting at week 4 to prednisone 5 mg per day by week 24.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant change from baseline in MG-ADL and with a reduction of 4.2 points for inebilizumab versus 2.2 for placebo (P < .0001) at week 26 for the combined study population.

“You can see that the trend is actually going toward separation of the two groups after week 8 in the combined population,” said Nowak. Key secondary endpoints also showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful change from baseline compared with placebo.

This included a statistically significant change in QMG score inebilizumab compared with placebo for the combined population, a reduction of 4.8 versus 2.3 points, respectively, at week 26 (P = .0002).

In addition, both MG-ADL and QMG scores in the AChR+ subgroup were superior for inebilizumab versus placebo at week 26, with reductions of 4.2 versus 2.4, and 4.4 versus 2.0; P = .0015 and P = .0011, respectively.

In the MuSK+ subgroup, inebilizumab-treated patients had better MG-ADL scores than placebo-treated patients, with reductions of 3.9 versus 1.7 points, respectively, at week 26, although this difference did not meet statistical significance.

“There were no increased safety incidents in the inebilizumab-treated patients versus placebo, and a similar percentage of safety incidents in the AChR–positive and MuSK–positive groups. There were three deaths reported, all likely related to myasthenic crisis,” he said.

Nowak said that inebilizumab is “unique from the other currently FDA-approved medications for myasthenia gravis in that it’s targeting the upstream immunopathogenic mechanism of disease, specifically B cells — and B cells that are actually antibody-secreting cells.”

“It is targeting the factories of autoantibody production, whereas an FcRn antagonist, for example, is not targeting those factories but rather targeting what’s being produced — the immunoglobulins, IgGs in general,” he added.

Nowak said that what is particularly exciting about the drug is that the schedule is not very frequent. It begins with an initial IV infusion, followed by a second infusion 2 weeks later and a third infusion 6 months after that, so that patients are treated approximately every 6 months. This is in contrast to some other targeted therapies, where failing to address the underlying factors driving immunopathogenesis necessitates more regular and frequent medication administration.
 

New, Novel, Exciting

Commenting on the research, Neelam Goyal, MD, who chaired the session, said, “It’s definitely new, novel, interesting, exciting.”

Goyal, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, also noted that while B-cell depletion has shown some previous success in MG, it was with rituximab, a CD20 B-cell depleting agent.

She noted that unlike rituximab, which targets CD20, inebilizumab targets CD19, although both medications lead to B-cell depletion. Rituximab has proven effective for MUSK–positive MG, which accounts for approximately 5% of cases.

However, Goyal noted that the results for AChR–positive MG have been mixed — “the BeatMG trial was negative and the RINOMAX trial was positive. So, I think this is really interesting. It is exciting, and this drug is already on the market.”

She added that although inebilizumab is already US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica, it still faces approval and indication hurdles for MG.

The future of this drug in the management algorithm for MG remains uncertain. Goyal noted that it’s “quite costly,” and although its benefits are evident — particularly for FcRn and complement inhibitors — some early data from chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studies appear significantly more impressive.

Nowak disclosed research support from the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Annexon Biosciences, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), Immunovant, Grifols, S.A., and Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics (now Amgen). Served as a consultant and advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Cabaletta Bio, Cour Pharmaceuticals, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), Immunovant, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), and Viela Bio (Horizon Therapeutics, now Amgen).

Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory, or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Amgen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Inebilizumab, a first-in-class anti-CD19 B-cell depleting agent, demonstrated both safety and superior efficacy compared with placebo in patients with seropositive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), new phase 3 data showed.

“Based on these results, we have demonstrated that targeting B cells, including the antibody-secreting cells, is beneficial, and there is likely a role for this kind of therapeutic strategy for patients with myasthenia gravis,” said senior investigator Richard Nowak, MD.

The findings were published and presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Largest Cohort of Muscle-Specific Kinase (MuSK) Antibody–Positive Disease

The Myasthenia Gravis INebilizumab Trial study enrolled 238 participants, 60.8% women, mean age 47.5 years, from 79 sites in 18 countries. The participants were divided into two cohorts: 190 acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibody–positive patients and 48 MuSK autoantibody–positive patients.

“This is the largest enrolled cohort of MuSK antibody–positive disease in a placebo-controlled trial to date,” said Nowak, director of the Yale Myasthenia Gravis Clinic and associate professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut.

Both groups had similar gMG duration (mean 6.7 and 5.2 years for AChR+ and MuSK+ patients, respectively) and disease severity based on Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) baseline score. In addition, more than 80% of participants were on a prednisone equivalent dose greater than 5 mg daily at study entry.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (IV) inebilizumab or IV placebo for 52 weeks (AChR+ group) or 26 weeks (MuSK+ group). In addition, study participants who were taking corticosteroids were tapered down starting at week 4 to prednisone 5 mg per day by week 24.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant change from baseline in MG-ADL and with a reduction of 4.2 points for inebilizumab versus 2.2 for placebo (P < .0001) at week 26 for the combined study population.

“You can see that the trend is actually going toward separation of the two groups after week 8 in the combined population,” said Nowak. Key secondary endpoints also showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful change from baseline compared with placebo.

This included a statistically significant change in QMG score inebilizumab compared with placebo for the combined population, a reduction of 4.8 versus 2.3 points, respectively, at week 26 (P = .0002).

In addition, both MG-ADL and QMG scores in the AChR+ subgroup were superior for inebilizumab versus placebo at week 26, with reductions of 4.2 versus 2.4, and 4.4 versus 2.0; P = .0015 and P = .0011, respectively.

In the MuSK+ subgroup, inebilizumab-treated patients had better MG-ADL scores than placebo-treated patients, with reductions of 3.9 versus 1.7 points, respectively, at week 26, although this difference did not meet statistical significance.

“There were no increased safety incidents in the inebilizumab-treated patients versus placebo, and a similar percentage of safety incidents in the AChR–positive and MuSK–positive groups. There were three deaths reported, all likely related to myasthenic crisis,” he said.

Nowak said that inebilizumab is “unique from the other currently FDA-approved medications for myasthenia gravis in that it’s targeting the upstream immunopathogenic mechanism of disease, specifically B cells — and B cells that are actually antibody-secreting cells.”

“It is targeting the factories of autoantibody production, whereas an FcRn antagonist, for example, is not targeting those factories but rather targeting what’s being produced — the immunoglobulins, IgGs in general,” he added.

Nowak said that what is particularly exciting about the drug is that the schedule is not very frequent. It begins with an initial IV infusion, followed by a second infusion 2 weeks later and a third infusion 6 months after that, so that patients are treated approximately every 6 months. This is in contrast to some other targeted therapies, where failing to address the underlying factors driving immunopathogenesis necessitates more regular and frequent medication administration.
 

New, Novel, Exciting

Commenting on the research, Neelam Goyal, MD, who chaired the session, said, “It’s definitely new, novel, interesting, exciting.”

Goyal, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, also noted that while B-cell depletion has shown some previous success in MG, it was with rituximab, a CD20 B-cell depleting agent.

She noted that unlike rituximab, which targets CD20, inebilizumab targets CD19, although both medications lead to B-cell depletion. Rituximab has proven effective for MUSK–positive MG, which accounts for approximately 5% of cases.

However, Goyal noted that the results for AChR–positive MG have been mixed — “the BeatMG trial was negative and the RINOMAX trial was positive. So, I think this is really interesting. It is exciting, and this drug is already on the market.”

She added that although inebilizumab is already US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica, it still faces approval and indication hurdles for MG.

The future of this drug in the management algorithm for MG remains uncertain. Goyal noted that it’s “quite costly,” and although its benefits are evident — particularly for FcRn and complement inhibitors — some early data from chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studies appear significantly more impressive.

Nowak disclosed research support from the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Annexon Biosciences, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), Immunovant, Grifols, S.A., and Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics (now Amgen). Served as a consultant and advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Cabaletta Bio, Cour Pharmaceuticals, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), Immunovant, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), and Viela Bio (Horizon Therapeutics, now Amgen).

Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory, or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Amgen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.

“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”

He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.

Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”

Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”

Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.

“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.

“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
 

Three Pillars of Treatment

Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.

“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”

The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.

Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.

“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”

When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.

Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.

“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”

“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.

For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
 

Treating the Causes

The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”

One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.

“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”

“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”

And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.

Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.

“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
 

Q&A

During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.

“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”

Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.

“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”

Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.

“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”

What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?

“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”

Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”

Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
 

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

“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.

“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”

He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.

Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”

Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”

Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.

“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.

“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
 

Three Pillars of Treatment

Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.

“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”

The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.

Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.

“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”

When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.

Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.

“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”

“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.

For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
 

Treating the Causes

The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”

One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.

“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”

“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”

And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.

Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.

“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
 

Q&A

During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.

“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”

Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.

“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”

Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.

“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”

What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?

“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”

Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”

Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
 

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

“Obesity only recently caught the public’s attention as a disease,” Matthias Blüher, MD, professor of medicine at the Leipzig University and director of the Helmholtz Institute for Metabolism, Obesity and Vascular Research, Leipzig, Germany, told attendees in a thought-provoking presentation at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Even though the attitudes around how obesity is perceived may be relatively new, Blüher believes they are nonetheless significant. As a sign of how the cultural headwinds have shifted, he noted the 2022 film The Whale, which focuses on a character struggling with obesity. As Blüher pointed out, not only did the film’s star, Brendan Fraser, receive an Academy Award for his portrayal but he also theorized that the majority of celebrities in the audience were likely taking new weight loss medications.

“I strongly believe that in the future, obesity treatment will carry less stigma. It will be considered not as a cosmetic problem, but as a progressive disease.”

He sees several changes in the management of obesity likely to occur on the near horizon, beginning with when interventions directed at treating it will begin.

Obesity treatment should start at a young age, he said, because if you have overweight at ages 3-6 years, the likelihood of becoming an adult with obesity is approximately 90%. “Looking ahead, shouldn’t we put more emphasis on this age group?”

Furthermore, he hopes that clinical trials will move beyond body weight and body mass index (BMI) as their main outcome parameters. Instead, “we should talk about fat distribution, fat or adipose tissue function, muscle loss, body composition, and severity of disease.”

Blüher pointed to the recently published framework for the diagnosis, staging, and management of obesity in adults put forward by the European Association for the Study of Obesity. It states that obesity should be staged not based on BMI or body weight alone but also on an individual›s medical, functional, and psychological (eg, mental health and eating behavior) status.

“The causes of obesity are too complex to be individually targeted,” he continued, unlike examples such as hypercholesterolemia or smoking cessation, where clinicians may have one target to address.

“But overeating, slow metabolism, and low physical activity involve socio-cultural factors, global food marketing, and many other factors. Therefore, clinicians should be setting health targets, such as improving sleep apnea and improving physical functioning, rather than a kilogram number.”
 

Three Pillars of Treatment

Right now, clinicians have three pillars of treatments available, Blüher said. The first is behavioral intervention, including strategies such as counseling, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, stress management, and sleep management.

“We know that these behavioral aspects typically lack adherence and effect size, but they’re important, and for a certain group of people, they may be the best and safest treatment.”

The second pillar is pharmacotherapy, and the third is surgery.

Each pillar poses questions for future research, he explained.

“First, do we really need more evidence that behavioral interventions typically fail in the long run and are prone to rebound of body weight and health issues? No. Or which diet is best? We have hundreds of diet interventions, all of which basically show very similar outcomes. They lead to an average weight loss of 3% to 5% and do improve health conditions associated with obesity.”

When it comes to pharmacotherapies, Blüher does believe clinicians need more options.

Depending on affordability and access, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) semaglutide will likely become the first-line therapy for most people living with obesity who want to take medications, he suggested. The dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide will be reserved for those with more severe conditions.

“But this is not the end of the story,” he said. “The pipelines for obesity pharmacotherapies are full, and they have different categories. We are optimistic that we will have more therapies not only for type 2 diabetes (T2D) but also for obesity. Combinations such as CagriSema (cagrilintide + semaglutide, currently indicated for T2D) may outperform the monotherapies. We have to see if they’re as safe, and we have to wait for phase 3 trials and long-term outcomes.”

“The field is open for many combinations, ideas and interactions among the incretin-based signaling systems, but personally, I think that the triple agonists have a very bright future,” Blüher said.

For example, retatrutide, an agonist of the GIP, GLP-1, and glucagon receptors, showed promise in a phase 2 trial. Although that was not a comparative study, “the average changes in body weight suggest that in a dose-dependent manner, you can expect even more weight loss than with tirzepatide.”
 

Treating the Causes

The future of obesity therapy might also be directed at the originating factors that cause it, Blüher suggested, adding that “treating the causes is a dream of mine.”

One example of treating the cause is leptin therapy, as shown in a 1999 study of recombinant leptin in a child with congenital leptin deficiency. A more recent example is setmelanotide treatment for proopiomelanocortin deficiency.

“We are at the beginning for these causative treatments of obesity, and I hope that the future will hold much more of these insights and targets, as in cancer therapy.”

“Finally,” he said, “We eat with our brain. And so in the future, we also will be better able to use our knowledge about the complex neural circuits that are obesogenic, and how to target them. In doing so, we can learn from surgeons because obesity surgery is very effective in changing the anatomy, and we also observe hormonal changes. We see that ghrelin, GLP-1, peptide YY, and many others are affected when the anatomy changes. Why can’t we use that knowledge to design drugs that resemble or mimic the effect size of bariatric surgery?”

And that goes to the third pillar of treatment and the question of whether the new weight loss drugs may replace surgery, which also was the topic of another EASD session.

Blüher doesn’t see that happening for at least a decade, given that there is still an effect-size gap between tirzepatide and surgery, especially for individuals with T2D. In addition, he noted, there will still be nonresponders to drugs, and clinicians are not treating to target yet. Looking ahead, he foresees a combination of surgery and multi-receptor agonists.

“I believe that obesity won’t be cured in the future, but we will have increasingly better lifelong management with a multidisciplinary approach, although behavioral interventions still will not be as successful as pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery,” he concluded.
 

Q&A

During the question-and-answer session following his lecture, several attendees asked Blüher for his thoughts around other emerging areas in this field. One wanted to know whether microbiome changes might be a future target for obesity treatment.

“So far, we don’t really understand which bacteria, which composition, at which age, and at which part of the intestine need to be targeted,” Blüher responded. “Before we know that mechanistically, I think it would be difficult, but it could be an avenue to go for, though I’m a little less optimistic about it compared to other approaches.”

Given that obesity is not one disease, are there cluster subtypes, as for T2D — eg, the hungry brain, the hungry gut, low metabolism — that might benefit from individualized treatment, another attendee asked.

“We do try to subcluster people living with obesity,” Blüher said. “We did that based on adipose tissue expression signatures, and indeed there is large heterogeneity. But we are far from addressing the root causes and all subtypes of the disease, and that would be a requirement before we could personalize treatment in that way.”

Next, an attendee asked what is responsible for the differential weight loss in people with diabetes and people without? Blüher responded that although he doesn’t have the answer, he does have hypotheses.

“One could be that the disease process — eg, deterioration of beta cell function, of the balance of hormones such as insulin and leptin, of inflammatory parameters, of insulin resistance — is much more advanced in diseases such as T2D and sleep apnea. Maybe it then takes more to address comorbid conditions such as inflammation and insulin resistance. Therefore, combining current therapies with insulin sensitizers, for example, could produce better results.”

What about using continuous glucose monitoring to help people stick to their diet?

“That’s an important question that speaks to personalized treatment,” he said. “It applies not only to continuous glucose monitoring but also to nutrition and other modes of self-monitoring, which seem to be among the most successful tools for long-term weight maintenance.”

Blüher finished by saying, “As we look into the future, I hope that there will be better approaches for all aspects of personalized medicine, whether it is nutrition, exercise, pharmacotherapy, or even surgical procedures.”

Blüher received honoraria for lectures and/or served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
 

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — Participants with type 2 diabetes who were able to stop insulin for up to 12 months after receiving the novel recellularization via electroporation therapy (ReCET) procedure in combination with treatment with semaglutide maintained their response at 24 months.

METHODOLOGY:

• ReCET technology, manufactured by Endogenex, uses a specialized catheter that ablates the duodenal mucosa with electroporation, enhancing sensitivity to endogenous insulin.
• In the first-in-human study, a total of 14 participants (aged 28-75 years; body mass index, 24-40) underwent the ReCET procedure. They then followed a 2-week isocaloric liquid diet, after which they were initiated on semaglutide and gradually titrated up to 1 mg/wk.
• Patients were followed for a total of 24 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 14 participants, 12 (86%) no longer required insulin at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
• At the 24-month follow-up, 11 patients were still insulin-free while maintaining A1c levels below 7.5%. (One patient withdrew consent at 18 months.)
• Semaglutide at the maximum dose was well-tolerated by 93% of participants. One patient experienced nausea that limited titration to the maximum dose. There were no serious adverse events to the ReCET procedure.
• Researchers have started the EMINENT-2 trial that will compare the use of ReCET with a sham procedure. All patients will still receive semaglutide.

IN PRACTICE:

• “These findings are very encouraging, suggesting that ReCET is a safe and feasible procedure that, when combined with semaglutide, can effectively eliminate the need for insulin therapy,” said the study’s lead author.
• It’s a novel way of treating type 2 diabetes using a single endoscopic procedure instead of repeated insulin injections, Busch explained. “But we do need to consider whether repeat treatment will be necessary because I don’t believe this will be forever.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Celine Busch, MBBS, a PhD candidate in gastroenterology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and was presented (abstract OP049) at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria, on October 14, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the small sample size, uncontrolled nature, and bias due to combination therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received an unrestricted research grant from Endogenex. No other relevant disclosures were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — Participants with type 2 diabetes who were able to stop insulin for up to 12 months after receiving the novel recellularization via electroporation therapy (ReCET) procedure in combination with treatment with semaglutide maintained their response at 24 months.

METHODOLOGY:

• ReCET technology, manufactured by Endogenex, uses a specialized catheter that ablates the duodenal mucosa with electroporation, enhancing sensitivity to endogenous insulin.
• In the first-in-human study, a total of 14 participants (aged 28-75 years; body mass index, 24-40) underwent the ReCET procedure. They then followed a 2-week isocaloric liquid diet, after which they were initiated on semaglutide and gradually titrated up to 1 mg/wk.
• Patients were followed for a total of 24 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 14 participants, 12 (86%) no longer required insulin at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
• At the 24-month follow-up, 11 patients were still insulin-free while maintaining A1c levels below 7.5%. (One patient withdrew consent at 18 months.)
• Semaglutide at the maximum dose was well-tolerated by 93% of participants. One patient experienced nausea that limited titration to the maximum dose. There were no serious adverse events to the ReCET procedure.
• Researchers have started the EMINENT-2 trial that will compare the use of ReCET with a sham procedure. All patients will still receive semaglutide.

IN PRACTICE:

• “These findings are very encouraging, suggesting that ReCET is a safe and feasible procedure that, when combined with semaglutide, can effectively eliminate the need for insulin therapy,” said the study’s lead author.
• It’s a novel way of treating type 2 diabetes using a single endoscopic procedure instead of repeated insulin injections, Busch explained. “But we do need to consider whether repeat treatment will be necessary because I don’t believe this will be forever.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Celine Busch, MBBS, a PhD candidate in gastroenterology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and was presented (abstract OP049) at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria, on October 14, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the small sample size, uncontrolled nature, and bias due to combination therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received an unrestricted research grant from Endogenex. No other relevant disclosures were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

VIENNA, AUSTRIA — Participants with type 2 diabetes who were able to stop insulin for up to 12 months after receiving the novel recellularization via electroporation therapy (ReCET) procedure in combination with treatment with semaglutide maintained their response at 24 months.

METHODOLOGY:

• ReCET technology, manufactured by Endogenex, uses a specialized catheter that ablates the duodenal mucosa with electroporation, enhancing sensitivity to endogenous insulin.
• In the first-in-human study, a total of 14 participants (aged 28-75 years; body mass index, 24-40) underwent the ReCET procedure. They then followed a 2-week isocaloric liquid diet, after which they were initiated on semaglutide and gradually titrated up to 1 mg/wk.
• Patients were followed for a total of 24 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 14 participants, 12 (86%) no longer required insulin at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.
• At the 24-month follow-up, 11 patients were still insulin-free while maintaining A1c levels below 7.5%. (One patient withdrew consent at 18 months.)
• Semaglutide at the maximum dose was well-tolerated by 93% of participants. One patient experienced nausea that limited titration to the maximum dose. There were no serious adverse events to the ReCET procedure.
• Researchers have started the EMINENT-2 trial that will compare the use of ReCET with a sham procedure. All patients will still receive semaglutide.

IN PRACTICE:

• “These findings are very encouraging, suggesting that ReCET is a safe and feasible procedure that, when combined with semaglutide, can effectively eliminate the need for insulin therapy,” said the study’s lead author.
• It’s a novel way of treating type 2 diabetes using a single endoscopic procedure instead of repeated insulin injections, Busch explained. “But we do need to consider whether repeat treatment will be necessary because I don’t believe this will be forever.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Celine Busch, MBBS, a PhD candidate in gastroenterology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and was presented (abstract OP049) at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024 in Vienna, Austria, on October 14, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the small sample size, uncontrolled nature, and bias due to combination therapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received an unrestricted research grant from Endogenex. No other relevant disclosures were declared.

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