Latest News

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

TOPLINE:

Consuming five or more servings per week of dark chocolate is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with infrequent or no consumption. Conversely, a higher consumption of milk chocolate does not significantly affect the risk for diabetes and may contribute to greater weight gain.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chocolate is rich in flavanols, natural compounds known to support heart health and lower the risk for T2D. However, the link between chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D is uncertain, with inconsistent research findings that don’t distinguish between dark or milk chocolate.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the associations between dark, milk, and total chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D in three long-term US studies of female nurses and male healthcare professionals with no history of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline.
• The relationship between total chocolate consumption and the risk for diabetes was investigated in 192,208 individuals who reported their chocolate consumption using validated food frequency questionnaires every 4 years from 1986 onward.
• Information on chocolate subtypes was assessed from 2006/2007 onward in 111,654 participants.
• Participants self-reported T2D through biennial questionnaires, which was confirmed via supplementary questionnaires collecting data on glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c concentration, symptoms, and treatments; they also self-reported their body weight at baseline and during follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 4,829,175 person-years of follow-up, researchers identified 18,862 individuals with incident T2D in the total chocolate analysis cohort.
• In the chocolate subtype cohort, 4771 incident T2D cases were identified during 1,270,348 person-years of follow-up. Having at least five servings per week of dark chocolate was associated with a 21% lower risk for T2D (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; P for trend = .006), while milk chocolate consumption showed no significant link (P for trend = .75).
• The risk for T2D decreased by 3% for each additional serving of dark chocolate consumed weekly, indicating a dose-response effect.
• Compared with individuals who did not change their chocolate intake, those who had an increased milk chocolate intake had greater weight gain over 4-year periods (mean difference, 0.35 kg; 95% CI, 0.27-0.43); dark chocolate showed no significant association with weight change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Even though dark and milk chocolate have similar levels of calories and saturated fat, it appears that the rich polyphenols in dark chocolate might offset the effects of saturated fat and sugar on weight gain and diabetes. It’s an intriguing difference that’s worth exploring more,” corresponding author Qi Sun from the Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Binkai Liu, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. It was published online in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively limited number of participants in the higher chocolate consumption groups may have reduced the statistical power for detecting modest associations between dark chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D. Additionally, the study population primarily consisted of non-Hispanic White adults older than 50 years at baseline, which, along with their professional backgrounds, may have limited the generalizability of the study findings to other populations with different socioeconomic or personal characteristics. Chocolate consumption in this study was lower than the national average of three servings per week, which may have limited the ability to assess the dose-response relationship at higher intake levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving investigator-initiated grants, being on scientific advisory boards, and receiving research funding from certain institutions.

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

Consuming five or more servings per week of dark chocolate is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with infrequent or no consumption. Conversely, a higher consumption of milk chocolate does not significantly affect the risk for diabetes and may contribute to greater weight gain.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chocolate is rich in flavanols, natural compounds known to support heart health and lower the risk for T2D. However, the link between chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D is uncertain, with inconsistent research findings that don’t distinguish between dark or milk chocolate.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the associations between dark, milk, and total chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D in three long-term US studies of female nurses and male healthcare professionals with no history of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline.
• The relationship between total chocolate consumption and the risk for diabetes was investigated in 192,208 individuals who reported their chocolate consumption using validated food frequency questionnaires every 4 years from 1986 onward.
• Information on chocolate subtypes was assessed from 2006/2007 onward in 111,654 participants.
• Participants self-reported T2D through biennial questionnaires, which was confirmed via supplementary questionnaires collecting data on glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c concentration, symptoms, and treatments; they also self-reported their body weight at baseline and during follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 4,829,175 person-years of follow-up, researchers identified 18,862 individuals with incident T2D in the total chocolate analysis cohort.
• In the chocolate subtype cohort, 4771 incident T2D cases were identified during 1,270,348 person-years of follow-up. Having at least five servings per week of dark chocolate was associated with a 21% lower risk for T2D (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; P for trend = .006), while milk chocolate consumption showed no significant link (P for trend = .75).
• The risk for T2D decreased by 3% for each additional serving of dark chocolate consumed weekly, indicating a dose-response effect.
• Compared with individuals who did not change their chocolate intake, those who had an increased milk chocolate intake had greater weight gain over 4-year periods (mean difference, 0.35 kg; 95% CI, 0.27-0.43); dark chocolate showed no significant association with weight change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Even though dark and milk chocolate have similar levels of calories and saturated fat, it appears that the rich polyphenols in dark chocolate might offset the effects of saturated fat and sugar on weight gain and diabetes. It’s an intriguing difference that’s worth exploring more,” corresponding author Qi Sun from the Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Binkai Liu, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. It was published online in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively limited number of participants in the higher chocolate consumption groups may have reduced the statistical power for detecting modest associations between dark chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D. Additionally, the study population primarily consisted of non-Hispanic White adults older than 50 years at baseline, which, along with their professional backgrounds, may have limited the generalizability of the study findings to other populations with different socioeconomic or personal characteristics. Chocolate consumption in this study was lower than the national average of three servings per week, which may have limited the ability to assess the dose-response relationship at higher intake levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving investigator-initiated grants, being on scientific advisory boards, and receiving research funding from certain institutions.

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

Consuming five or more servings per week of dark chocolate is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with infrequent or no consumption. Conversely, a higher consumption of milk chocolate does not significantly affect the risk for diabetes and may contribute to greater weight gain.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chocolate is rich in flavanols, natural compounds known to support heart health and lower the risk for T2D. However, the link between chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D is uncertain, with inconsistent research findings that don’t distinguish between dark or milk chocolate.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the associations between dark, milk, and total chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D in three long-term US studies of female nurses and male healthcare professionals with no history of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline.
• The relationship between total chocolate consumption and the risk for diabetes was investigated in 192,208 individuals who reported their chocolate consumption using validated food frequency questionnaires every 4 years from 1986 onward.
• Information on chocolate subtypes was assessed from 2006/2007 onward in 111,654 participants.
• Participants self-reported T2D through biennial questionnaires, which was confirmed via supplementary questionnaires collecting data on glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c concentration, symptoms, and treatments; they also self-reported their body weight at baseline and during follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 4,829,175 person-years of follow-up, researchers identified 18,862 individuals with incident T2D in the total chocolate analysis cohort.
• In the chocolate subtype cohort, 4771 incident T2D cases were identified during 1,270,348 person-years of follow-up. Having at least five servings per week of dark chocolate was associated with a 21% lower risk for T2D (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; P for trend = .006), while milk chocolate consumption showed no significant link (P for trend = .75).
• The risk for T2D decreased by 3% for each additional serving of dark chocolate consumed weekly, indicating a dose-response effect.
• Compared with individuals who did not change their chocolate intake, those who had an increased milk chocolate intake had greater weight gain over 4-year periods (mean difference, 0.35 kg; 95% CI, 0.27-0.43); dark chocolate showed no significant association with weight change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Even though dark and milk chocolate have similar levels of calories and saturated fat, it appears that the rich polyphenols in dark chocolate might offset the effects of saturated fat and sugar on weight gain and diabetes. It’s an intriguing difference that’s worth exploring more,” corresponding author Qi Sun from the Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Binkai Liu, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. It was published online in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively limited number of participants in the higher chocolate consumption groups may have reduced the statistical power for detecting modest associations between dark chocolate consumption and the risk for T2D. Additionally, the study population primarily consisted of non-Hispanic White adults older than 50 years at baseline, which, along with their professional backgrounds, may have limited the generalizability of the study findings to other populations with different socioeconomic or personal characteristics. Chocolate consumption in this study was lower than the national average of three servings per week, which may have limited the ability to assess the dose-response relationship at higher intake levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving investigator-initiated grants, being on scientific advisory boards, and receiving research funding from certain institutions.

This article was created 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.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

What is the best upfront chemotherapy option for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases?

A new report demonstrated why patients benefit most from starting on a two-drug chemotherapy regimen — FOLFOX or FOLFIRI — instead of a three-drug regimen — FOLFOXIRI.

The CAIRO5 trial compared overall survival among 294 patients with right sided tumors and/or RAS/BRAF mutations who received FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil [FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus folinic acid as an enhancer) or investigators’ choice of FOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid) or FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and folinic acid). All patients also received bevacizumab.

In a post hoc analysis, researchers found no overall survival benefit among patients receiving the three-drug regimen. At a median follow-up of just over 5 years, the median overall survival was 23.6 months with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI vs 24.1 months with FOLFOXIRI (P = .44).

The finding means that patients can avoid the extra toxicity associated with combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan without compromising overall survival, Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

The analysis did not stop there in defining the optimal upfront therapy for this patient population.

In a second arm of the analysis, researchers looked at whether swapping in panitumumab for bevacizumab offered any benefit in 236 patients with left-sided tumors and wild-type RAS/BRAF who received either of the two-drug regimens.

Here, the authors also found no benefit of using panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI instead of bevacizumab, reporting a median overall survival of 38.3 months with panitumumab vs 39.9 months with bevacizumab.

In addition to avoiding upfront FOLFOXIRI, patients can also avoid the skin reactions and other toxicities associated with panitumumab, including “horrible acne,” Venook said.

Overall, the results support the use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab “irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness” as the initial treatment for CRC with liver-only metastases, concluded the study investigators, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

Why Does This Clarity Matter?

The study confirms the standard practice in the United States of starting patients on a two-drug chemotherapy with bevacizumab for the indication and highlights “why we don’t go all in right at the beginning” with a three-drug regimen, Venook said.

In short, more drugs upfront isn’t going to change patients’ long-term survival outcome. Plus, using FOLFOXIRI upfront means “you’ve really pretty much used up all your guns for early treatment,” Venook said.

As for bevacizumab vs panitumumab, most practitioners in the United States favor bevacizumab because of the rash many patients on epidermal growth factor receptor blockers like panitumumab and cetuximab get, Venook said.

Because FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are equally effective on the overall survival front, the decision between them comes down to a balance between patient comorbidities and side effect profiles. Neuropathy, for instance, is more common with FOLFOX, whereas diarrhea is more likely with FOLFIRI, Venook said.

Venook favors FOLFIRI because “almost every patient will develop neuropathy” after seven or eight doses of FOLFOX, which limits its use. “You’re expecting that first treatment to give you the most mileage,” so starting with a treatment “you’re going to get limited use out of ... never made sense to me,” he said.

Venook noted that the results apply only to the older patients studied in CAIRO5 and not necessarily to the ever-growing population of younger people with CRC. Patients in the trial had a median age of 62 years with a performance status of 0-1, a median of 12 liver lesions with no metastases outside the liver, and no contraindications to local or systemic treatment.

The CAIRO5 analysis also looked at what happens after upfront chemotherapy, with the goal being to shrink liver lesions so the lesions can be surgically removed or treated with thermal ablation.

Almost half the patients ultimately underwent resection or ablation, and 39% of those in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 49% in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab group then went on to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to reduce the risk for recurrence. ACT was recommended in the study, but not required, and consisted of chemotherapy minus bevacizumab or panitumumab.

Overall survival was longest among patients who had complete local treatment without recurrences for at least 6 months (64.3 months) or who had salvage local treatment after early recurrence (58.9 months). Median overall survival was 30.5 months for patients with complete local treatment without salvage after early recurrence, and 28.7 months for patients with incomplete local treatment. Overall survival was worst in patients who remained unresectable (18.3 months).

ACT was associated with improved overall and relapse-free survival, justifying discussing the option with patients who have completed local treatment, the study team said.

CAIRO5 was funded by Roche and Amgen, makers of bevacizumab and panitumumab, respectively. Bond and Venook didn’t have any disclosures.

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

What is the best upfront chemotherapy option for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases?

A new report demonstrated why patients benefit most from starting on a two-drug chemotherapy regimen — FOLFOX or FOLFIRI — instead of a three-drug regimen — FOLFOXIRI.

The CAIRO5 trial compared overall survival among 294 patients with right sided tumors and/or RAS/BRAF mutations who received FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil [FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus folinic acid as an enhancer) or investigators’ choice of FOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid) or FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and folinic acid). All patients also received bevacizumab.

In a post hoc analysis, researchers found no overall survival benefit among patients receiving the three-drug regimen. At a median follow-up of just over 5 years, the median overall survival was 23.6 months with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI vs 24.1 months with FOLFOXIRI (P = .44).

The finding means that patients can avoid the extra toxicity associated with combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan without compromising overall survival, Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

The analysis did not stop there in defining the optimal upfront therapy for this patient population.

In a second arm of the analysis, researchers looked at whether swapping in panitumumab for bevacizumab offered any benefit in 236 patients with left-sided tumors and wild-type RAS/BRAF who received either of the two-drug regimens.

Here, the authors also found no benefit of using panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI instead of bevacizumab, reporting a median overall survival of 38.3 months with panitumumab vs 39.9 months with bevacizumab.

In addition to avoiding upfront FOLFOXIRI, patients can also avoid the skin reactions and other toxicities associated with panitumumab, including “horrible acne,” Venook said.

Overall, the results support the use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab “irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness” as the initial treatment for CRC with liver-only metastases, concluded the study investigators, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

Why Does This Clarity Matter?

The study confirms the standard practice in the United States of starting patients on a two-drug chemotherapy with bevacizumab for the indication and highlights “why we don’t go all in right at the beginning” with a three-drug regimen, Venook said.

In short, more drugs upfront isn’t going to change patients’ long-term survival outcome. Plus, using FOLFOXIRI upfront means “you’ve really pretty much used up all your guns for early treatment,” Venook said.

As for bevacizumab vs panitumumab, most practitioners in the United States favor bevacizumab because of the rash many patients on epidermal growth factor receptor blockers like panitumumab and cetuximab get, Venook said.

Because FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are equally effective on the overall survival front, the decision between them comes down to a balance between patient comorbidities and side effect profiles. Neuropathy, for instance, is more common with FOLFOX, whereas diarrhea is more likely with FOLFIRI, Venook said.

Venook favors FOLFIRI because “almost every patient will develop neuropathy” after seven or eight doses of FOLFOX, which limits its use. “You’re expecting that first treatment to give you the most mileage,” so starting with a treatment “you’re going to get limited use out of ... never made sense to me,” he said.

Venook noted that the results apply only to the older patients studied in CAIRO5 and not necessarily to the ever-growing population of younger people with CRC. Patients in the trial had a median age of 62 years with a performance status of 0-1, a median of 12 liver lesions with no metastases outside the liver, and no contraindications to local or systemic treatment.

The CAIRO5 analysis also looked at what happens after upfront chemotherapy, with the goal being to shrink liver lesions so the lesions can be surgically removed or treated with thermal ablation.

Almost half the patients ultimately underwent resection or ablation, and 39% of those in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 49% in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab group then went on to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to reduce the risk for recurrence. ACT was recommended in the study, but not required, and consisted of chemotherapy minus bevacizumab or panitumumab.

Overall survival was longest among patients who had complete local treatment without recurrences for at least 6 months (64.3 months) or who had salvage local treatment after early recurrence (58.9 months). Median overall survival was 30.5 months for patients with complete local treatment without salvage after early recurrence, and 28.7 months for patients with incomplete local treatment. Overall survival was worst in patients who remained unresectable (18.3 months).

ACT was associated with improved overall and relapse-free survival, justifying discussing the option with patients who have completed local treatment, the study team said.

CAIRO5 was funded by Roche and Amgen, makers of bevacizumab and panitumumab, respectively. Bond and Venook didn’t have any disclosures.

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

What is the best upfront chemotherapy option for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases?

A new report demonstrated why patients benefit most from starting on a two-drug chemotherapy regimen — FOLFOX or FOLFIRI — instead of a three-drug regimen — FOLFOXIRI.

The CAIRO5 trial compared overall survival among 294 patients with right sided tumors and/or RAS/BRAF mutations who received FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil [FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus folinic acid as an enhancer) or investigators’ choice of FOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid) or FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and folinic acid). All patients also received bevacizumab.

In a post hoc analysis, researchers found no overall survival benefit among patients receiving the three-drug regimen. At a median follow-up of just over 5 years, the median overall survival was 23.6 months with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI vs 24.1 months with FOLFOXIRI (P = .44).

The finding means that patients can avoid the extra toxicity associated with combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan without compromising overall survival, Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

The analysis did not stop there in defining the optimal upfront therapy for this patient population.

In a second arm of the analysis, researchers looked at whether swapping in panitumumab for bevacizumab offered any benefit in 236 patients with left-sided tumors and wild-type RAS/BRAF who received either of the two-drug regimens.

Here, the authors also found no benefit of using panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI instead of bevacizumab, reporting a median overall survival of 38.3 months with panitumumab vs 39.9 months with bevacizumab.

In addition to avoiding upfront FOLFOXIRI, patients can also avoid the skin reactions and other toxicities associated with panitumumab, including “horrible acne,” Venook said.

Overall, the results support the use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab “irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness” as the initial treatment for CRC with liver-only metastases, concluded the study investigators, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

Why Does This Clarity Matter?

The study confirms the standard practice in the United States of starting patients on a two-drug chemotherapy with bevacizumab for the indication and highlights “why we don’t go all in right at the beginning” with a three-drug regimen, Venook said.

In short, more drugs upfront isn’t going to change patients’ long-term survival outcome. Plus, using FOLFOXIRI upfront means “you’ve really pretty much used up all your guns for early treatment,” Venook said.

As for bevacizumab vs panitumumab, most practitioners in the United States favor bevacizumab because of the rash many patients on epidermal growth factor receptor blockers like panitumumab and cetuximab get, Venook said.

Because FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are equally effective on the overall survival front, the decision between them comes down to a balance between patient comorbidities and side effect profiles. Neuropathy, for instance, is more common with FOLFOX, whereas diarrhea is more likely with FOLFIRI, Venook said.

Venook favors FOLFIRI because “almost every patient will develop neuropathy” after seven or eight doses of FOLFOX, which limits its use. “You’re expecting that first treatment to give you the most mileage,” so starting with a treatment “you’re going to get limited use out of ... never made sense to me,” he said.

Venook noted that the results apply only to the older patients studied in CAIRO5 and not necessarily to the ever-growing population of younger people with CRC. Patients in the trial had a median age of 62 years with a performance status of 0-1, a median of 12 liver lesions with no metastases outside the liver, and no contraindications to local or systemic treatment.

The CAIRO5 analysis also looked at what happens after upfront chemotherapy, with the goal being to shrink liver lesions so the lesions can be surgically removed or treated with thermal ablation.

Almost half the patients ultimately underwent resection or ablation, and 39% of those in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 49% in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab group then went on to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to reduce the risk for recurrence. ACT was recommended in the study, but not required, and consisted of chemotherapy minus bevacizumab or panitumumab.

Overall survival was longest among patients who had complete local treatment without recurrences for at least 6 months (64.3 months) or who had salvage local treatment after early recurrence (58.9 months). Median overall survival was 30.5 months for patients with complete local treatment without salvage after early recurrence, and 28.7 months for patients with incomplete local treatment. Overall survival was worst in patients who remained unresectable (18.3 months).

ACT was associated with improved overall and relapse-free survival, justifying discussing the option with patients who have completed local treatment, the study team said.

CAIRO5 was funded by Roche and Amgen, makers of bevacizumab and panitumumab, respectively. Bond and Venook didn’t have any disclosures.

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

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

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1) prescriptions for diabetes and obesity treatment are soaring, as is the interest in their potential for treating an array of other conditions. One area in particular is addiction, which, like obesity and diabetes, has been increasing, both in terms of case numbers and deaths from drug overdose, excessive alcohol use, and tobacco/e-cigarettes.

So far, data supporting GLP-1 use in addiction are limited to preclinical studies, anecdotal evidence, a few cohort analyses, and randomized clinical trials. But the chatter among researchers and clinicians, not to mention patients, portends its promise. 

 

“The evidence is very preliminary and very exciting,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “The studies have been going on for more than a decade looking at the effects of GLP medications, mostly first generation and predominantly in rodents,” she said.

GLP “drugs like exenatide and liraglutide all reduced consumption of nicotine, of alcohol, of cocaine, and response to opioids,” Volkow said.

 

Clinical, Real-World Data Promising

Second-generation agents like semaglutide appear to hold greater promise than their first-generation counterparts. Volkow noted that not only is semaglutide a “much more potent drug,” but pointed to recent findings that saw significant declines in heavy drinking days among patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

At the Research Society on Alcohol’s annual meeting in June, researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill presented findings of a 2-month, phase 2, randomized clinical trial comparing two low doses (0.25 mg/wk, 0.5 mg/wk) of semaglutide with placebo in 48 participants reporting symptoms of AUD. Though preliminary and unpublished, the data showed a reduction in drinking quantity and heavy drinking in the semaglutide vs placebo groups.

Real-world evidence from electronic health records has also underscored the potential benefit of semaglutide in AUD. In a 12-month retrospective cohort analysis of the records of patients with obesity and no prior AUD diagnosis prescribed semaglutide (n = 45,797) or non-GLP-1 anti-obesity medications (naltrexone, topiramate, n = 38,028), semaglutide was associated with a 50% lower risk for a recurrent AUD diagnosis and a 56% significantly lower risk for incidence AUD diagnosis across gender, age group, and race, and in patients with/without type 2 diabetes.

Likewise, findings from another cohort analysis assigned 1306 treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and no prior AUD diagnosis to semaglutide or non-GLP-1 anti-diabetes medications and followed them for 12 months. Compared with people prescribed non-GLP-1 diabetes medications, those who took semaglutide had a 42% lower risk for recurrent alcohol use diagnosis, consistent across gender, age group, and race, whether the person had been diagnosed with obesity.

However, AUD is not the only addiction where semaglutide appears to have potential benefit. Cohort studies conducted by Volkow and her colleagues have suggested as much as a 78% reduced risk or opioid overdose in patients with comorbid obesity and type 2 diabetes) and a 44% reduction in cannabis use disorder in type 2 diabetes patients without a prior cannabis use disorder history.

 

Unclear Mechanisms, Multiple Theories

It’s not entirely clear how semaglutide provides a path for addicts to reduce their cravings or which patients might benefit most.

Preclinical studies have suggested that GLP-1 receptors are expressed throughout the mesolimbic dopamine system and transmit dopamine directly to reward centers in the forebrain, for example, the nucleus accumbens. The drugs appear to reduce dopamine release and transmission to these reward centers, as well as to areas that are responsible for impulse control.

“What we’re seeing is counteracting mechanisms that allow you to self-regulate are also involved in addiction, but I don’t know to what extent these medications could help strengthen that,” said Volkow.

Henry Kranzler, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, has a paper in press looking at genetic correlation between body mass index (BMI) and AUD. “Genetic analysis showed that many of the same genes are working in both disorders but in opposite directions,” he said.

The bottom line is that “they share genetics, but by no means are they the same; this gives us reason to believe that the GLP-1s could be beneficial in obesity but not nearly as beneficial for treating addiction,” said Kranzler.

 

Behind Closed Doors

Like many people with overweight or obesity who are on semaglutide, Bridget Pilloud, a writer who divides her time between Washington State and Arizona, no longer has any desire to drink.

“I used to really enjoy sitting and slowly sipping an Old Fashioned. I used to really enjoy specific whiskeys. Now, I don’t even like the flavor; the pleasure of drinking is gone,” she said.

Inexplicably, Pilloud said that she’s also given up compulsive shopping; “The hunt and acquisition of it was always really delicious to me,” she said.

Pilloud’s experience is not unique. Angela Fitch, MD, an obesity medicine specialist, co-founder and CMO of knownwell health, and former president of the Obesity Medicine Association, has had patients on semaglutide tell her that they’re not shopping as much.

But self-reports about alcohol consumption are far more common.

A 2023 analysis of social media posts reinforced that the experience is quite common, albeit self-reported.

Researchers used machine learning attribution mapping of 68,250 posts related to GLP-1 or GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonists on the Reddit platform. Among the 1580 alcohol-related posts, 71% (1134/1580) of users of either drug said they had reduced cravings and decreased desire to drink. In a remote companion study of 153 people with obesity taking semaglutide (n = 56), tirzepatide (n = 50), or neither (n = 47), there appeared to be a reduced suppression of the desire to consume alcohol, with users reporting fewer drinks and binge episodes than control individuals.

Self-reports also underscored the association between either of the medications and less stimulating/sedative effects of alcohol compared with before starting the medications and to controls.

Behind closed doors, there appears to be as much chatter about the potential of these agents for AUD and other addiction disorders as there are questions about factors like treatment duration, safety of long-term, chronic use, and dosage.

“We don’t have data around people with normal weight and how much risk that is to them if they start taking these medications for addiction and reduce their BMI as low as 18,” said Fitch.

There’s also the question of when and how to wean patients off the medications, a consideration that is quite important for patients with addiction problems, said Volkow.

“What happens when you become addicted to drugs is that you start to degrade social support systems needed for well-being,” she explained. “The big difference with drugs versus foods is that you can live happily with no drugs at all, whereas you die if you don’t eat. So, there are greater challenges in the ability to change the environment (eg, help stabilize everyday life so people have alternative reinforcers) when you remove the reward.” 

Additional considerations range from overuse and the development of treatment-resistant obesity to the need to ensure that patients on these drugs receive ongoing management and, of course, access, noted Fitch.

Still, the NIDA coffers are open. “We’re waiting for proposals,” said Volkow.

Fitch is cofounder and CMO of knownwell health. Volkow reported no relevant financial relationships. Kranzler is a member of advisory boards for Altimmune, Clearmind Medicine, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Enthion Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sophrosyne Pharmaceuticals; a consultant to Sobrera Pharma and Altimmune; the recipient of research funding and medication supplies for an investigator-initiated study from Alkermes; a member of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology’s Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which was supported in the past 3 years by Alkermes, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ethypharm, Imbrium, Indivior, Kinnov, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, and Pear; and a holder of US patent 10,900,082 titled: “Genotype-guided dosing of opioid agonists,” issued on January 26, 2021.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1) prescriptions for diabetes and obesity treatment are soaring, as is the interest in their potential for treating an array of other conditions. One area in particular is addiction, which, like obesity and diabetes, has been increasing, both in terms of case numbers and deaths from drug overdose, excessive alcohol use, and tobacco/e-cigarettes.

So far, data supporting GLP-1 use in addiction are limited to preclinical studies, anecdotal evidence, a few cohort analyses, and randomized clinical trials. But the chatter among researchers and clinicians, not to mention patients, portends its promise. 

 

“The evidence is very preliminary and very exciting,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “The studies have been going on for more than a decade looking at the effects of GLP medications, mostly first generation and predominantly in rodents,” she said.

GLP “drugs like exenatide and liraglutide all reduced consumption of nicotine, of alcohol, of cocaine, and response to opioids,” Volkow said.

 

Clinical, Real-World Data Promising

Second-generation agents like semaglutide appear to hold greater promise than their first-generation counterparts. Volkow noted that not only is semaglutide a “much more potent drug,” but pointed to recent findings that saw significant declines in heavy drinking days among patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

At the Research Society on Alcohol’s annual meeting in June, researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill presented findings of a 2-month, phase 2, randomized clinical trial comparing two low doses (0.25 mg/wk, 0.5 mg/wk) of semaglutide with placebo in 48 participants reporting symptoms of AUD. Though preliminary and unpublished, the data showed a reduction in drinking quantity and heavy drinking in the semaglutide vs placebo groups.

Real-world evidence from electronic health records has also underscored the potential benefit of semaglutide in AUD. In a 12-month retrospective cohort analysis of the records of patients with obesity and no prior AUD diagnosis prescribed semaglutide (n = 45,797) or non-GLP-1 anti-obesity medications (naltrexone, topiramate, n = 38,028), semaglutide was associated with a 50% lower risk for a recurrent AUD diagnosis and a 56% significantly lower risk for incidence AUD diagnosis across gender, age group, and race, and in patients with/without type 2 diabetes.

Likewise, findings from another cohort analysis assigned 1306 treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and no prior AUD diagnosis to semaglutide or non-GLP-1 anti-diabetes medications and followed them for 12 months. Compared with people prescribed non-GLP-1 diabetes medications, those who took semaglutide had a 42% lower risk for recurrent alcohol use diagnosis, consistent across gender, age group, and race, whether the person had been diagnosed with obesity.

However, AUD is not the only addiction where semaglutide appears to have potential benefit. Cohort studies conducted by Volkow and her colleagues have suggested as much as a 78% reduced risk or opioid overdose in patients with comorbid obesity and type 2 diabetes) and a 44% reduction in cannabis use disorder in type 2 diabetes patients without a prior cannabis use disorder history.

 

Unclear Mechanisms, Multiple Theories

It’s not entirely clear how semaglutide provides a path for addicts to reduce their cravings or which patients might benefit most.

Preclinical studies have suggested that GLP-1 receptors are expressed throughout the mesolimbic dopamine system and transmit dopamine directly to reward centers in the forebrain, for example, the nucleus accumbens. The drugs appear to reduce dopamine release and transmission to these reward centers, as well as to areas that are responsible for impulse control.

“What we’re seeing is counteracting mechanisms that allow you to self-regulate are also involved in addiction, but I don’t know to what extent these medications could help strengthen that,” said Volkow.

Henry Kranzler, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, has a paper in press looking at genetic correlation between body mass index (BMI) and AUD. “Genetic analysis showed that many of the same genes are working in both disorders but in opposite directions,” he said.

The bottom line is that “they share genetics, but by no means are they the same; this gives us reason to believe that the GLP-1s could be beneficial in obesity but not nearly as beneficial for treating addiction,” said Kranzler.

 

Behind Closed Doors

Like many people with overweight or obesity who are on semaglutide, Bridget Pilloud, a writer who divides her time between Washington State and Arizona, no longer has any desire to drink.

“I used to really enjoy sitting and slowly sipping an Old Fashioned. I used to really enjoy specific whiskeys. Now, I don’t even like the flavor; the pleasure of drinking is gone,” she said.

Inexplicably, Pilloud said that she’s also given up compulsive shopping; “The hunt and acquisition of it was always really delicious to me,” she said.

Pilloud’s experience is not unique. Angela Fitch, MD, an obesity medicine specialist, co-founder and CMO of knownwell health, and former president of the Obesity Medicine Association, has had patients on semaglutide tell her that they’re not shopping as much.

But self-reports about alcohol consumption are far more common.

A 2023 analysis of social media posts reinforced that the experience is quite common, albeit self-reported.

Researchers used machine learning attribution mapping of 68,250 posts related to GLP-1 or GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonists on the Reddit platform. Among the 1580 alcohol-related posts, 71% (1134/1580) of users of either drug said they had reduced cravings and decreased desire to drink. In a remote companion study of 153 people with obesity taking semaglutide (n = 56), tirzepatide (n = 50), or neither (n = 47), there appeared to be a reduced suppression of the desire to consume alcohol, with users reporting fewer drinks and binge episodes than control individuals.

Self-reports also underscored the association between either of the medications and less stimulating/sedative effects of alcohol compared with before starting the medications and to controls.

Behind closed doors, there appears to be as much chatter about the potential of these agents for AUD and other addiction disorders as there are questions about factors like treatment duration, safety of long-term, chronic use, and dosage.

“We don’t have data around people with normal weight and how much risk that is to them if they start taking these medications for addiction and reduce their BMI as low as 18,” said Fitch.

There’s also the question of when and how to wean patients off the medications, a consideration that is quite important for patients with addiction problems, said Volkow.

“What happens when you become addicted to drugs is that you start to degrade social support systems needed for well-being,” she explained. “The big difference with drugs versus foods is that you can live happily with no drugs at all, whereas you die if you don’t eat. So, there are greater challenges in the ability to change the environment (eg, help stabilize everyday life so people have alternative reinforcers) when you remove the reward.” 

Additional considerations range from overuse and the development of treatment-resistant obesity to the need to ensure that patients on these drugs receive ongoing management and, of course, access, noted Fitch.

Still, the NIDA coffers are open. “We’re waiting for proposals,” said Volkow.

Fitch is cofounder and CMO of knownwell health. Volkow reported no relevant financial relationships. Kranzler is a member of advisory boards for Altimmune, Clearmind Medicine, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Enthion Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sophrosyne Pharmaceuticals; a consultant to Sobrera Pharma and Altimmune; the recipient of research funding and medication supplies for an investigator-initiated study from Alkermes; a member of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology’s Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which was supported in the past 3 years by Alkermes, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ethypharm, Imbrium, Indivior, Kinnov, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, and Pear; and a holder of US patent 10,900,082 titled: “Genotype-guided dosing of opioid agonists,” issued on January 26, 2021.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1) prescriptions for diabetes and obesity treatment are soaring, as is the interest in their potential for treating an array of other conditions. One area in particular is addiction, which, like obesity and diabetes, has been increasing, both in terms of case numbers and deaths from drug overdose, excessive alcohol use, and tobacco/e-cigarettes.

So far, data supporting GLP-1 use in addiction are limited to preclinical studies, anecdotal evidence, a few cohort analyses, and randomized clinical trials. But the chatter among researchers and clinicians, not to mention patients, portends its promise. 

 

“The evidence is very preliminary and very exciting,” said Nora D. Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “The studies have been going on for more than a decade looking at the effects of GLP medications, mostly first generation and predominantly in rodents,” she said.

GLP “drugs like exenatide and liraglutide all reduced consumption of nicotine, of alcohol, of cocaine, and response to opioids,” Volkow said.

 

Clinical, Real-World Data Promising

Second-generation agents like semaglutide appear to hold greater promise than their first-generation counterparts. Volkow noted that not only is semaglutide a “much more potent drug,” but pointed to recent findings that saw significant declines in heavy drinking days among patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

At the Research Society on Alcohol’s annual meeting in June, researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill presented findings of a 2-month, phase 2, randomized clinical trial comparing two low doses (0.25 mg/wk, 0.5 mg/wk) of semaglutide with placebo in 48 participants reporting symptoms of AUD. Though preliminary and unpublished, the data showed a reduction in drinking quantity and heavy drinking in the semaglutide vs placebo groups.

Real-world evidence from electronic health records has also underscored the potential benefit of semaglutide in AUD. In a 12-month retrospective cohort analysis of the records of patients with obesity and no prior AUD diagnosis prescribed semaglutide (n = 45,797) or non-GLP-1 anti-obesity medications (naltrexone, topiramate, n = 38,028), semaglutide was associated with a 50% lower risk for a recurrent AUD diagnosis and a 56% significantly lower risk for incidence AUD diagnosis across gender, age group, and race, and in patients with/without type 2 diabetes.

Likewise, findings from another cohort analysis assigned 1306 treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and no prior AUD diagnosis to semaglutide or non-GLP-1 anti-diabetes medications and followed them for 12 months. Compared with people prescribed non-GLP-1 diabetes medications, those who took semaglutide had a 42% lower risk for recurrent alcohol use diagnosis, consistent across gender, age group, and race, whether the person had been diagnosed with obesity.

However, AUD is not the only addiction where semaglutide appears to have potential benefit. Cohort studies conducted by Volkow and her colleagues have suggested as much as a 78% reduced risk or opioid overdose in patients with comorbid obesity and type 2 diabetes) and a 44% reduction in cannabis use disorder in type 2 diabetes patients without a prior cannabis use disorder history.

 

Unclear Mechanisms, Multiple Theories

It’s not entirely clear how semaglutide provides a path for addicts to reduce their cravings or which patients might benefit most.

Preclinical studies have suggested that GLP-1 receptors are expressed throughout the mesolimbic dopamine system and transmit dopamine directly to reward centers in the forebrain, for example, the nucleus accumbens. The drugs appear to reduce dopamine release and transmission to these reward centers, as well as to areas that are responsible for impulse control.

“What we’re seeing is counteracting mechanisms that allow you to self-regulate are also involved in addiction, but I don’t know to what extent these medications could help strengthen that,” said Volkow.

Henry Kranzler, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, has a paper in press looking at genetic correlation between body mass index (BMI) and AUD. “Genetic analysis showed that many of the same genes are working in both disorders but in opposite directions,” he said.

The bottom line is that “they share genetics, but by no means are they the same; this gives us reason to believe that the GLP-1s could be beneficial in obesity but not nearly as beneficial for treating addiction,” said Kranzler.

 

Behind Closed Doors

Like many people with overweight or obesity who are on semaglutide, Bridget Pilloud, a writer who divides her time between Washington State and Arizona, no longer has any desire to drink.

“I used to really enjoy sitting and slowly sipping an Old Fashioned. I used to really enjoy specific whiskeys. Now, I don’t even like the flavor; the pleasure of drinking is gone,” she said.

Inexplicably, Pilloud said that she’s also given up compulsive shopping; “The hunt and acquisition of it was always really delicious to me,” she said.

Pilloud’s experience is not unique. Angela Fitch, MD, an obesity medicine specialist, co-founder and CMO of knownwell health, and former president of the Obesity Medicine Association, has had patients on semaglutide tell her that they’re not shopping as much.

But self-reports about alcohol consumption are far more common.

A 2023 analysis of social media posts reinforced that the experience is quite common, albeit self-reported.

Researchers used machine learning attribution mapping of 68,250 posts related to GLP-1 or GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonists on the Reddit platform. Among the 1580 alcohol-related posts, 71% (1134/1580) of users of either drug said they had reduced cravings and decreased desire to drink. In a remote companion study of 153 people with obesity taking semaglutide (n = 56), tirzepatide (n = 50), or neither (n = 47), there appeared to be a reduced suppression of the desire to consume alcohol, with users reporting fewer drinks and binge episodes than control individuals.

Self-reports also underscored the association between either of the medications and less stimulating/sedative effects of alcohol compared with before starting the medications and to controls.

Behind closed doors, there appears to be as much chatter about the potential of these agents for AUD and other addiction disorders as there are questions about factors like treatment duration, safety of long-term, chronic use, and dosage.

“We don’t have data around people with normal weight and how much risk that is to them if they start taking these medications for addiction and reduce their BMI as low as 18,” said Fitch.

There’s also the question of when and how to wean patients off the medications, a consideration that is quite important for patients with addiction problems, said Volkow.

“What happens when you become addicted to drugs is that you start to degrade social support systems needed for well-being,” she explained. “The big difference with drugs versus foods is that you can live happily with no drugs at all, whereas you die if you don’t eat. So, there are greater challenges in the ability to change the environment (eg, help stabilize everyday life so people have alternative reinforcers) when you remove the reward.” 

Additional considerations range from overuse and the development of treatment-resistant obesity to the need to ensure that patients on these drugs receive ongoing management and, of course, access, noted Fitch.

Still, the NIDA coffers are open. “We’re waiting for proposals,” said Volkow.

Fitch is cofounder and CMO of knownwell health. Volkow reported no relevant financial relationships. Kranzler is a member of advisory boards for Altimmune, Clearmind Medicine, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Enthion Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sophrosyne Pharmaceuticals; a consultant to Sobrera Pharma and Altimmune; the recipient of research funding and medication supplies for an investigator-initiated study from Alkermes; a member of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology’s Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which was supported in the past 3 years by Alkermes, Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Ethypharm, Imbrium, Indivior, Kinnov, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, and Pear; and a holder of US patent 10,900,082 titled: “Genotype-guided dosing of opioid agonists,” issued on January 26, 2021.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.

Environmental EDs

Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.

These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”

The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.

Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.

 

Multiple Linked Diseases

An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.

Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.

EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.

 

A Difficult Battle

Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:

• Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
• Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
• Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)

Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France 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.

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.

Environmental EDs

Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.

These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”

The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.

Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.

 

Multiple Linked Diseases

An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.

Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.

EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.

 

A Difficult Battle

Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:

• Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
• Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
• Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)

Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France 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.

Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.

Environmental EDs

Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.

These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”

The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.

Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.

 

Multiple Linked Diseases

An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.

Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.

EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.

 

A Difficult Battle

Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:

• Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
• Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
• Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)

Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.

 

This story was translated from Univadis France 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.