News

It’s no secret that regular exercise is important. But for patients with painful joints, it can be the last thing they want to do. Exercise is one of the cornerstones of managing arthritis, yet nearly one third of patients with arthritis are inactive.

Guidelines recommend that clinicians encourage their patients to engage in physical activity, but it can be difficult to know where to start.

This news organization recently spoke to experts on what resources are available, how much exercise is ideal, and how to motivate patients to move more.
 

What Are the Benefits of Exercise in Osteoarthritis?

Nearly all professional societies agree that exercise is one of the hallmarks of managing osteoarthritis (OA). According to two Cochrane reviews, there is high-equality evidence that exercise can help reduce pain as well as improve physical function in both hip and knee OA. In fact, physical activity can decrease pain and improve function by 40% in adults with arthritis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exercise also plays a large role in preventing disability by improving joint range of motion as well as maintaining muscle mass that supports joints.

There is also preliminary evidence that exercise could have a structural benefit to osteoarthritic joints. In a study of about 1200 individuals with knee OA, those who walked for exercise not only had reduced frequent knee pain, compared with non-walkers, but also were 20% less likely to have worsening of medial joint space narrowing.

Beyond symptom and impairment improvements, exercise can also play a role in staving off other chronic diseases linked to OA, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physical activity and exercise “are effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects,” wrote the authors of a commentary in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.

The known mental health benefits of exercise can also be beneficial for patients, as rates of depression and anxiety can be higher in people with arthritis than in the general population.
 

What Is the Ideal Amount of Exercise for Patients?

Current guidelines recommend that adults should get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. But for patients with chronic pain, that may seem unachievable, Kelli Allen, PhD, professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, said during a presentation at the American College of Rheumatology 2023 annual meeting in San Diego. Promisingly, research has shown that some exercise is better than none.

One study looking at over 1500 adults with lower extremity joint symptoms suggested that approximately 1 hour of physical activity per week increased the likelihood that participants remained disability-free over 4 years. In another analysis looking at 280 studies, researchers concluded that resistance training programs lasting 3-6 months resulted in moderate improvements in pain and physical function, but these benefits did not depend on exercise volume or participant adherence.

“These findings highlight the flexibility available for clinicians in the prescription of resistance exercise for knee and hip OA without compromising improvements in pain and physical function,” the authors wrote.

Step counts can be another way to measure activity, with 10,000 steps being a common target. But fewer steps a day can also yield health benefits. One study found that among nearly 1800 participants with knee OA, each additional 1000 steps per day was associated with a 16%-18% reduced risk of developing functional limitations 2 years later. Walking 6000 steps a day was the threshold that best determined who would develop functional limitations and who would not.

“I think it’s really a helpful message to encourage people with chronic pain that if you can get to 6000, maybe that’s a good goal,” Dr. Allen said.

Going for a 20-minute walk three times a week can be a good place to start, said Grace H. Lo, MD, associate professor in the Division of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For people who currently do not do any activity, Dr. Lo recommends starting small, like walking to get the mail every day. “Do something practical that is something they can sustain and keep in their daily activities that will help to increase their function and hopefully lessen some of their symptoms.”
 

Are Certain Types of Exercise More Beneficial?

There is no specific type of exercise that is best for OA, so it comes down to patient preference. The best exercise is “whatever somebody is actually going to do,” Dr. Allen noted.

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the Division of Rheumatic Disease at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and rheumatologist at the North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas, Texas, said that her practice focuses on a combination of aerobic activity, functional balance, and strength training, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

“It’s not clear to me that one type of exercise is better than another; it’s more about what does this patient enjoy, and how can we make this a routine, so it is a sustainable behavior,” she told this news organization.

Generally, lower-impact exercises like biking, walking, or swimming tend to be better for OA, Dr. Lo added. Several studies have also shown tai chi to be beneficial in patients with OA, she said. More recently, Dr. Lo has conducted research on gardening as an exercise intervention for OA.

“It’s a great way to encourage people to exercise,” she said in an interview. “Besides the fact that they’re physically active, they can also be outside. There are a lot of mental health benefits to doing gardening as well.”

Dr. Allen added that certain exercises should be considered on the basis of an individual’s goals and physical needs. If someone has balance issues, for example, then yoga or tai chi could be useful to add to their exercise program, she said.
 

What Resources Are Available?

The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance has a list of 23 evidence-based exercise programs that have been shown to improve arthritis symptoms. These arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions vary from instructor-led, in-person sessions to self-directed programs.

Walk with Ease (or Camine Con Gusto in Spanish) is one popular program, noted Dr. Allen. The program can be in-person or self-directed, with a required booklet that costs $11.95. However, there are discounted books for community-based organizations. The My Knee Exercise program, created by the University of Melbourne, Australia, provides a free, self-directed, 6-month strengthening program. The availability and cost of other programs are dependent on the format and location, the guide noted.

But understanding what programs are available in certain communities takes time, which can be a barrier to clinician referrals, noted Katie Huffman, director of education and outreach at OA Action Alliance.

“We would love to see these programs being covered by payers and health plans so that there’s incentive for providers to refer and patients to participate in the programs,” she noted.

While some states do cover a limited number of programs under Medicaid, coverage across states and payers is not yet universal.

In addition to these programs, the alliance has a simple guide to help plan workouts based on current activity level. The guide links to free exercises from CreakyJoints, an online community for people with arthritis, and the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Lo noted that the Veterans Affairs program, “VA Whole Health,” has free resources that are available to anyone. The provided videos offer tai chi, chair exercises, and guided meditations.

“It’s thoughtful to people who have some limitations in their physical activity,” she said.

Because the program is online, it could be difficult to access for those who are not comfortable with electronics, she said, “but if you can find a way to pass that, I think that this is an amazing resource,” she said.
 

How Do You Motivate Patients to Move?

“When it comes to motivation, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Dr. Makris. She tries to identify what matters most for each patient as a starting point. “When they can identify something in their day-to-day life that they value, then I like to link a physical activity-based goal to that,” she said. Setting physical activity goals using the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) can be useful, she advised.

The OA Action Alliance also provides additional tools for clinicians on how to counsel patients on behavior change.

Understanding the patient’s lifestyle is also crucial when discussing physical activity, Dr. Lo added. “You have to give them practical solutions that they can actually incorporate into their lives,” she said.

Discussions around physical activity should be an ongoing part of clinic visits, both Dr. Lo and Dr. Makris agreed, to celebrate achievements and revise goals.

“I’m kind of notorious for being really slow in clinic because I just let people talk,” Dr. Lo said. “I do feel like these extra moments, when you spend time talking about these things, allow your recommendations to be more customized for the patients” and make the biggest impact.

Dr. Allen, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s no secret that regular exercise is important. But for patients with painful joints, it can be the last thing they want to do. Exercise is one of the cornerstones of managing arthritis, yet nearly one third of patients with arthritis are inactive.

Guidelines recommend that clinicians encourage their patients to engage in physical activity, but it can be difficult to know where to start.

This news organization recently spoke to experts on what resources are available, how much exercise is ideal, and how to motivate patients to move more.
 

What Are the Benefits of Exercise in Osteoarthritis?

Nearly all professional societies agree that exercise is one of the hallmarks of managing osteoarthritis (OA). According to two Cochrane reviews, there is high-equality evidence that exercise can help reduce pain as well as improve physical function in both hip and knee OA. In fact, physical activity can decrease pain and improve function by 40% in adults with arthritis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exercise also plays a large role in preventing disability by improving joint range of motion as well as maintaining muscle mass that supports joints.

There is also preliminary evidence that exercise could have a structural benefit to osteoarthritic joints. In a study of about 1200 individuals with knee OA, those who walked for exercise not only had reduced frequent knee pain, compared with non-walkers, but also were 20% less likely to have worsening of medial joint space narrowing.

Beyond symptom and impairment improvements, exercise can also play a role in staving off other chronic diseases linked to OA, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physical activity and exercise “are effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects,” wrote the authors of a commentary in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.

The known mental health benefits of exercise can also be beneficial for patients, as rates of depression and anxiety can be higher in people with arthritis than in the general population.
 

What Is the Ideal Amount of Exercise for Patients?

Current guidelines recommend that adults should get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. But for patients with chronic pain, that may seem unachievable, Kelli Allen, PhD, professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, said during a presentation at the American College of Rheumatology 2023 annual meeting in San Diego. Promisingly, research has shown that some exercise is better than none.

One study looking at over 1500 adults with lower extremity joint symptoms suggested that approximately 1 hour of physical activity per week increased the likelihood that participants remained disability-free over 4 years. In another analysis looking at 280 studies, researchers concluded that resistance training programs lasting 3-6 months resulted in moderate improvements in pain and physical function, but these benefits did not depend on exercise volume or participant adherence.

“These findings highlight the flexibility available for clinicians in the prescription of resistance exercise for knee and hip OA without compromising improvements in pain and physical function,” the authors wrote.

Step counts can be another way to measure activity, with 10,000 steps being a common target. But fewer steps a day can also yield health benefits. One study found that among nearly 1800 participants with knee OA, each additional 1000 steps per day was associated with a 16%-18% reduced risk of developing functional limitations 2 years later. Walking 6000 steps a day was the threshold that best determined who would develop functional limitations and who would not.

“I think it’s really a helpful message to encourage people with chronic pain that if you can get to 6000, maybe that’s a good goal,” Dr. Allen said.

Going for a 20-minute walk three times a week can be a good place to start, said Grace H. Lo, MD, associate professor in the Division of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For people who currently do not do any activity, Dr. Lo recommends starting small, like walking to get the mail every day. “Do something practical that is something they can sustain and keep in their daily activities that will help to increase their function and hopefully lessen some of their symptoms.”
 

Are Certain Types of Exercise More Beneficial?

There is no specific type of exercise that is best for OA, so it comes down to patient preference. The best exercise is “whatever somebody is actually going to do,” Dr. Allen noted.

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the Division of Rheumatic Disease at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and rheumatologist at the North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas, Texas, said that her practice focuses on a combination of aerobic activity, functional balance, and strength training, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

“It’s not clear to me that one type of exercise is better than another; it’s more about what does this patient enjoy, and how can we make this a routine, so it is a sustainable behavior,” she told this news organization.

Generally, lower-impact exercises like biking, walking, or swimming tend to be better for OA, Dr. Lo added. Several studies have also shown tai chi to be beneficial in patients with OA, she said. More recently, Dr. Lo has conducted research on gardening as an exercise intervention for OA.

“It’s a great way to encourage people to exercise,” she said in an interview. “Besides the fact that they’re physically active, they can also be outside. There are a lot of mental health benefits to doing gardening as well.”

Dr. Allen added that certain exercises should be considered on the basis of an individual’s goals and physical needs. If someone has balance issues, for example, then yoga or tai chi could be useful to add to their exercise program, she said.
 

What Resources Are Available?

The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance has a list of 23 evidence-based exercise programs that have been shown to improve arthritis symptoms. These arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions vary from instructor-led, in-person sessions to self-directed programs.

Walk with Ease (or Camine Con Gusto in Spanish) is one popular program, noted Dr. Allen. The program can be in-person or self-directed, with a required booklet that costs $11.95. However, there are discounted books for community-based organizations. The My Knee Exercise program, created by the University of Melbourne, Australia, provides a free, self-directed, 6-month strengthening program. The availability and cost of other programs are dependent on the format and location, the guide noted.

But understanding what programs are available in certain communities takes time, which can be a barrier to clinician referrals, noted Katie Huffman, director of education and outreach at OA Action Alliance.

“We would love to see these programs being covered by payers and health plans so that there’s incentive for providers to refer and patients to participate in the programs,” she noted.

While some states do cover a limited number of programs under Medicaid, coverage across states and payers is not yet universal.

In addition to these programs, the alliance has a simple guide to help plan workouts based on current activity level. The guide links to free exercises from CreakyJoints, an online community for people with arthritis, and the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Lo noted that the Veterans Affairs program, “VA Whole Health,” has free resources that are available to anyone. The provided videos offer tai chi, chair exercises, and guided meditations.

“It’s thoughtful to people who have some limitations in their physical activity,” she said.

Because the program is online, it could be difficult to access for those who are not comfortable with electronics, she said, “but if you can find a way to pass that, I think that this is an amazing resource,” she said.
 

How Do You Motivate Patients to Move?

“When it comes to motivation, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Dr. Makris. She tries to identify what matters most for each patient as a starting point. “When they can identify something in their day-to-day life that they value, then I like to link a physical activity-based goal to that,” she said. Setting physical activity goals using the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) can be useful, she advised.

The OA Action Alliance also provides additional tools for clinicians on how to counsel patients on behavior change.

Understanding the patient’s lifestyle is also crucial when discussing physical activity, Dr. Lo added. “You have to give them practical solutions that they can actually incorporate into their lives,” she said.

Discussions around physical activity should be an ongoing part of clinic visits, both Dr. Lo and Dr. Makris agreed, to celebrate achievements and revise goals.

“I’m kind of notorious for being really slow in clinic because I just let people talk,” Dr. Lo said. “I do feel like these extra moments, when you spend time talking about these things, allow your recommendations to be more customized for the patients” and make the biggest impact.

Dr. Allen, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s no secret that regular exercise is important. But for patients with painful joints, it can be the last thing they want to do. Exercise is one of the cornerstones of managing arthritis, yet nearly one third of patients with arthritis are inactive.

Guidelines recommend that clinicians encourage their patients to engage in physical activity, but it can be difficult to know where to start.

This news organization recently spoke to experts on what resources are available, how much exercise is ideal, and how to motivate patients to move more.
 

What Are the Benefits of Exercise in Osteoarthritis?

Nearly all professional societies agree that exercise is one of the hallmarks of managing osteoarthritis (OA). According to two Cochrane reviews, there is high-equality evidence that exercise can help reduce pain as well as improve physical function in both hip and knee OA. In fact, physical activity can decrease pain and improve function by 40% in adults with arthritis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Exercise also plays a large role in preventing disability by improving joint range of motion as well as maintaining muscle mass that supports joints.

There is also preliminary evidence that exercise could have a structural benefit to osteoarthritic joints. In a study of about 1200 individuals with knee OA, those who walked for exercise not only had reduced frequent knee pain, compared with non-walkers, but also were 20% less likely to have worsening of medial joint space narrowing.

Beyond symptom and impairment improvements, exercise can also play a role in staving off other chronic diseases linked to OA, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Physical activity and exercise “are effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects,” wrote the authors of a commentary in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.

The known mental health benefits of exercise can also be beneficial for patients, as rates of depression and anxiety can be higher in people with arthritis than in the general population.
 

What Is the Ideal Amount of Exercise for Patients?

Current guidelines recommend that adults should get 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. But for patients with chronic pain, that may seem unachievable, Kelli Allen, PhD, professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, said during a presentation at the American College of Rheumatology 2023 annual meeting in San Diego. Promisingly, research has shown that some exercise is better than none.

One study looking at over 1500 adults with lower extremity joint symptoms suggested that approximately 1 hour of physical activity per week increased the likelihood that participants remained disability-free over 4 years. In another analysis looking at 280 studies, researchers concluded that resistance training programs lasting 3-6 months resulted in moderate improvements in pain and physical function, but these benefits did not depend on exercise volume or participant adherence.

“These findings highlight the flexibility available for clinicians in the prescription of resistance exercise for knee and hip OA without compromising improvements in pain and physical function,” the authors wrote.

Step counts can be another way to measure activity, with 10,000 steps being a common target. But fewer steps a day can also yield health benefits. One study found that among nearly 1800 participants with knee OA, each additional 1000 steps per day was associated with a 16%-18% reduced risk of developing functional limitations 2 years later. Walking 6000 steps a day was the threshold that best determined who would develop functional limitations and who would not.

“I think it’s really a helpful message to encourage people with chronic pain that if you can get to 6000, maybe that’s a good goal,” Dr. Allen said.

Going for a 20-minute walk three times a week can be a good place to start, said Grace H. Lo, MD, associate professor in the Division of Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For people who currently do not do any activity, Dr. Lo recommends starting small, like walking to get the mail every day. “Do something practical that is something they can sustain and keep in their daily activities that will help to increase their function and hopefully lessen some of their symptoms.”
 

Are Certain Types of Exercise More Beneficial?

There is no specific type of exercise that is best for OA, so it comes down to patient preference. The best exercise is “whatever somebody is actually going to do,” Dr. Allen noted.

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the Division of Rheumatic Disease at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and rheumatologist at the North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas, Texas, said that her practice focuses on a combination of aerobic activity, functional balance, and strength training, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

“It’s not clear to me that one type of exercise is better than another; it’s more about what does this patient enjoy, and how can we make this a routine, so it is a sustainable behavior,” she told this news organization.

Generally, lower-impact exercises like biking, walking, or swimming tend to be better for OA, Dr. Lo added. Several studies have also shown tai chi to be beneficial in patients with OA, she said. More recently, Dr. Lo has conducted research on gardening as an exercise intervention for OA.

“It’s a great way to encourage people to exercise,” she said in an interview. “Besides the fact that they’re physically active, they can also be outside. There are a lot of mental health benefits to doing gardening as well.”

Dr. Allen added that certain exercises should be considered on the basis of an individual’s goals and physical needs. If someone has balance issues, for example, then yoga or tai chi could be useful to add to their exercise program, she said.
 

What Resources Are Available?

The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance has a list of 23 evidence-based exercise programs that have been shown to improve arthritis symptoms. These arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions vary from instructor-led, in-person sessions to self-directed programs.

Walk with Ease (or Camine Con Gusto in Spanish) is one popular program, noted Dr. Allen. The program can be in-person or self-directed, with a required booklet that costs $11.95. However, there are discounted books for community-based organizations. The My Knee Exercise program, created by the University of Melbourne, Australia, provides a free, self-directed, 6-month strengthening program. The availability and cost of other programs are dependent on the format and location, the guide noted.

But understanding what programs are available in certain communities takes time, which can be a barrier to clinician referrals, noted Katie Huffman, director of education and outreach at OA Action Alliance.

“We would love to see these programs being covered by payers and health plans so that there’s incentive for providers to refer and patients to participate in the programs,” she noted.

While some states do cover a limited number of programs under Medicaid, coverage across states and payers is not yet universal.

In addition to these programs, the alliance has a simple guide to help plan workouts based on current activity level. The guide links to free exercises from CreakyJoints, an online community for people with arthritis, and the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Lo noted that the Veterans Affairs program, “VA Whole Health,” has free resources that are available to anyone. The provided videos offer tai chi, chair exercises, and guided meditations.

“It’s thoughtful to people who have some limitations in their physical activity,” she said.

Because the program is online, it could be difficult to access for those who are not comfortable with electronics, she said, “but if you can find a way to pass that, I think that this is an amazing resource,” she said.
 

How Do You Motivate Patients to Move?

“When it comes to motivation, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Dr. Makris. She tries to identify what matters most for each patient as a starting point. “When they can identify something in their day-to-day life that they value, then I like to link a physical activity-based goal to that,” she said. Setting physical activity goals using the mnemonic SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) can be useful, she advised.

The OA Action Alliance also provides additional tools for clinicians on how to counsel patients on behavior change.

Understanding the patient’s lifestyle is also crucial when discussing physical activity, Dr. Lo added. “You have to give them practical solutions that they can actually incorporate into their lives,” she said.

Discussions around physical activity should be an ongoing part of clinic visits, both Dr. Lo and Dr. Makris agreed, to celebrate achievements and revise goals.

“I’m kind of notorious for being really slow in clinic because I just let people talk,” Dr. Lo said. “I do feel like these extra moments, when you spend time talking about these things, allow your recommendations to be more customized for the patients” and make the biggest impact.

Dr. Allen, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). 

METHODOLOGY:

• The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
• They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
• Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).

TAKEAWAY:

• Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
• Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
• At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
• IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). 

METHODOLOGY:

• The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
• They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
• Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).

TAKEAWAY:

• Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
• Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
• At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
• IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). 

METHODOLOGY:

• The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
• They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
• Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).

TAKEAWAY:

• Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
• Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
• At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
• IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prednisolone may be an effective bridge therapy to ease withdrawal symptoms and improve reversal for patients with migraine whose headaches persist despite them taking an abundance of acute headache medications, a condition known as medication-overuse headache (MOH), an observational study out of South Korea has found.

The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)  

Seoul National Univeristy College of Medicine

The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
 

Study methods

The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.

The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.

Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.

Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.

The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.

Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
 

Commentary

Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.

Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.

“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”

He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.

Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.

Prednisolone may be an effective bridge therapy to ease withdrawal symptoms and improve reversal for patients with migraine whose headaches persist despite them taking an abundance of acute headache medications, a condition known as medication-overuse headache (MOH), an observational study out of South Korea has found.

The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)  

Seoul National Univeristy College of Medicine

The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
 

Study methods

The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.

The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.

Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.

Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.

The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.

Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
 

Commentary

Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.

Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.

“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”

He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.

Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.

Prednisolone may be an effective bridge therapy to ease withdrawal symptoms and improve reversal for patients with migraine whose headaches persist despite them taking an abundance of acute headache medications, a condition known as medication-overuse headache (MOH), an observational study out of South Korea has found.

The study, a post-hoc analysis of the RELEASE multicenter observational cohort study of MOH patients in South Korea, found that patients who took prednisolone as a bridge therapy in the early phase of withdrawal from headache medications, or detoxification, had statistically significant higher rates of MOH reversal at 3 months after enrollment than those who did not, 73.8% versus 57.8% (P = .034)  

Seoul National Univeristy College of Medicine

The reversal trend also was noted at 1 month after treatment, the study authors, led by Mi Ji Lee, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, wrote. “Although an observational study cannot draw a definitive conclusion, our study supports the use of prednisolone for the treatment of MOH in a real-world setting,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
 

Study methods

The study was a post hoc analysis of the RELEASE study, which stands for Registry for Load and Management of Medication Overuse Headache. RELEASE is a multicenter observational cohort study that has been ongoing in South Korea since April 2020. The post hoc analysis included 309 patients, 59 of whom received prednisolone at a varying dose of 10-40 mg a day, with a varying course of 5-14 days. About 74% of patients (228 of 309) completed the 3-month follow-up period, including 41 in the prednisolone group.

The study used three different forms of medication withdrawal before the patients started prednisolone therapy: abrupt discontinuation; gradual discontinuation concurrent with starting prednisolone; and no withdrawal.

Because of the observational nature of the RELEASE study, participating physicians prescribed prednisolone at their own discretion. The study authors noted prednisolone use was neither randomized nor controlled, which they acknowledged as a limitation.

Dr. Lee and colleagues also acknowledged that newer calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists may not require detoxification to reverse MOH, but that those therapies are not always available for a variety of reasons, such as reimbursement restrictions, regional distribution issues, and financial issues.

The study also evaluated a number of secondary outcomes. For example, 72% of prednisolone patients achieved MOH reversal 1 month after starting treatment versus 54.9% of the nonprednisolone patients. (P = .33). Prednisolone users also had greater reductions in acute medication days (AMD) at 1 month and scores on headache impact test-6 (HIT-6) at 6 months.

Dr. Lee and colleagues noted that the concept of detoxification, or discontinuing medication overuse, as a treatment for MOH has been controversial due to a lack of high-quality evidence to support the approach. “Nevertheless,” they wrote, “several experts still put withdrawal of medication overuse as an important step of MOH treatment in clinical practice despite limited evidence.”
 

Commentary

Alan Rapoport, MD, a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, noted a number of limitations with the study. “It wasn’t a unified population of patients,” he said, “which makes it a little harder to say this medicine worked — worked on whom?” The lack of a treatment regimen — the varied dosing and treatment durations, along with the different withdrawal approaches — are further limitations, Dr. Rapoport said.

Nonetheless, the study is an important addition to the evidence on how to manage medication withdrawal in MOH, said Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society and founder and director emeritus of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, who has a keen interest in MOH research.

“I think this shows to some extent, although it doesn’t prove it because it’s a whole mixture of patients who were all treated differently by different doctors, but when you put them all together the patients who took steroids did better than the patients who did not,” he said. “The study authors did the best they could with the information they had.”

He termed the study “well-done by well-known authors in South Korea.” As medications such as CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies that target CGRP and its receptors become more available, MOH patients “may not need actual detoxification or steroids in their treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said.

Dr. Lee and co-authors have no disclosures. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews. He disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica.

The number of state psychiatric hospital beds has hit a historic low with about 11 beds per 100,000 population, a new report showed.

More than half of those beds (52%) were occupied by forensic patients, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who were committed to the state hospital through the criminal legal system to help establish competency for trial.

“The shortage of psychiatric beds has real consequences for people with SMI — some will wait months in jail despite not yet being found guilty of a crime, others will be denied admission despite being critically ill, and others still will be discharged prematurely onto the streets to free up beds, where they may grow sicker and be at an elevated risk of mortality,” wrote report coauthors Shanti Silver of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) in Arlington and Elizabeth Sinclair Hanq of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors in Alexandria, Virginia.

Published online on January 24, Prevention Over Punishment: Finding the Right Balance of Civil and Forensic State Psychiatric Hospital Beds recommends that state and local governments work together to open additional state psychiatric hospital beds for civil and forensic patients with SMI.

To obtain data about the availability of state psychiatric hospital beds, TAC surveyed state officials from April to August 2023. Official responses were provided by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Information for the remaining states was gathered from state websites, media articles, preexisting reports, hospital admission staff, or personal contacts living in those states.

The median occupancy rate for state-run hospitals in the new report was 90%, well above the 85% level investigators say usually signals a bed shortage. Overall, 73% of states reported occupancy rates above that level, with 11 states operating at 95% capacity.

The proportion of state psychiatric beds occupied by forensic patients has increased by 12% since 2016, largely driven by the growing number of individuals awaiting a competency determination to stand trial. Before they occupy these beds, however, people with SMI can languish in jail for months or even years, waiting for a bed to open.

About 15% of all state hospital beds and 31% of forensic beds across 34 states were occupied by individuals who had been found not guilty of a crime by reasons of insanity.

“The prioritization of admission of forensic patients has effectively created a system where someone must be arrested to access a state hospital bed,” report coauthor Lisa Dailey, TAC executive director, told this news organization. “But there are not enough beds for forensic patients either; thousands of inmates are waiting in jail on any given day for a bed to open up.”

There are several factors contributing to the scarcity of beds, including an existing hospital staffing shortage made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of appropriate discharge facilities.

Report authors offered a number of recommendations to federal, state, and local officials to increase the availability of state-run psychiatric hospital beds, including infrastructure changes involving recruiting and retaining staff for state hospitals and funding new discharge or step-down facilities so that patients have a place to recover when they leave the hospital.

Policy changes could also help, the report noted. Policymakers should consider “dismiss and transfer” procedures to address the backlog of nearly 6000 people with SMI waiting for a state hospital bed to achieve competency to stand trial. With “dismiss and transfer,” criminal charges are dismissed or suspended while an application for civil commitment is filed in the probate court. Once a civil commitment order has been issued, the individual is released to an outpatient commitment program for treatment.

“States must strive for prevention over punishment,” the report concluded.

There was no study funding reported, nor were disclosures available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of state psychiatric hospital beds has hit a historic low with about 11 beds per 100,000 population, a new report showed.

More than half of those beds (52%) were occupied by forensic patients, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who were committed to the state hospital through the criminal legal system to help establish competency for trial.

“The shortage of psychiatric beds has real consequences for people with SMI — some will wait months in jail despite not yet being found guilty of a crime, others will be denied admission despite being critically ill, and others still will be discharged prematurely onto the streets to free up beds, where they may grow sicker and be at an elevated risk of mortality,” wrote report coauthors Shanti Silver of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) in Arlington and Elizabeth Sinclair Hanq of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors in Alexandria, Virginia.

Published online on January 24, Prevention Over Punishment: Finding the Right Balance of Civil and Forensic State Psychiatric Hospital Beds recommends that state and local governments work together to open additional state psychiatric hospital beds for civil and forensic patients with SMI.

To obtain data about the availability of state psychiatric hospital beds, TAC surveyed state officials from April to August 2023. Official responses were provided by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Information for the remaining states was gathered from state websites, media articles, preexisting reports, hospital admission staff, or personal contacts living in those states.

The median occupancy rate for state-run hospitals in the new report was 90%, well above the 85% level investigators say usually signals a bed shortage. Overall, 73% of states reported occupancy rates above that level, with 11 states operating at 95% capacity.

The proportion of state psychiatric beds occupied by forensic patients has increased by 12% since 2016, largely driven by the growing number of individuals awaiting a competency determination to stand trial. Before they occupy these beds, however, people with SMI can languish in jail for months or even years, waiting for a bed to open.

About 15% of all state hospital beds and 31% of forensic beds across 34 states were occupied by individuals who had been found not guilty of a crime by reasons of insanity.

“The prioritization of admission of forensic patients has effectively created a system where someone must be arrested to access a state hospital bed,” report coauthor Lisa Dailey, TAC executive director, told this news organization. “But there are not enough beds for forensic patients either; thousands of inmates are waiting in jail on any given day for a bed to open up.”

There are several factors contributing to the scarcity of beds, including an existing hospital staffing shortage made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of appropriate discharge facilities.

Report authors offered a number of recommendations to federal, state, and local officials to increase the availability of state-run psychiatric hospital beds, including infrastructure changes involving recruiting and retaining staff for state hospitals and funding new discharge or step-down facilities so that patients have a place to recover when they leave the hospital.

Policy changes could also help, the report noted. Policymakers should consider “dismiss and transfer” procedures to address the backlog of nearly 6000 people with SMI waiting for a state hospital bed to achieve competency to stand trial. With “dismiss and transfer,” criminal charges are dismissed or suspended while an application for civil commitment is filed in the probate court. Once a civil commitment order has been issued, the individual is released to an outpatient commitment program for treatment.

“States must strive for prevention over punishment,” the report concluded.

There was no study funding reported, nor were disclosures available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of state psychiatric hospital beds has hit a historic low with about 11 beds per 100,000 population, a new report showed.

More than half of those beds (52%) were occupied by forensic patients, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who were committed to the state hospital through the criminal legal system to help establish competency for trial.

“The shortage of psychiatric beds has real consequences for people with SMI — some will wait months in jail despite not yet being found guilty of a crime, others will be denied admission despite being critically ill, and others still will be discharged prematurely onto the streets to free up beds, where they may grow sicker and be at an elevated risk of mortality,” wrote report coauthors Shanti Silver of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) in Arlington and Elizabeth Sinclair Hanq of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors in Alexandria, Virginia.

Published online on January 24, Prevention Over Punishment: Finding the Right Balance of Civil and Forensic State Psychiatric Hospital Beds recommends that state and local governments work together to open additional state psychiatric hospital beds for civil and forensic patients with SMI.

To obtain data about the availability of state psychiatric hospital beds, TAC surveyed state officials from April to August 2023. Official responses were provided by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Information for the remaining states was gathered from state websites, media articles, preexisting reports, hospital admission staff, or personal contacts living in those states.

The median occupancy rate for state-run hospitals in the new report was 90%, well above the 85% level investigators say usually signals a bed shortage. Overall, 73% of states reported occupancy rates above that level, with 11 states operating at 95% capacity.

The proportion of state psychiatric beds occupied by forensic patients has increased by 12% since 2016, largely driven by the growing number of individuals awaiting a competency determination to stand trial. Before they occupy these beds, however, people with SMI can languish in jail for months or even years, waiting for a bed to open.

About 15% of all state hospital beds and 31% of forensic beds across 34 states were occupied by individuals who had been found not guilty of a crime by reasons of insanity.

“The prioritization of admission of forensic patients has effectively created a system where someone must be arrested to access a state hospital bed,” report coauthor Lisa Dailey, TAC executive director, told this news organization. “But there are not enough beds for forensic patients either; thousands of inmates are waiting in jail on any given day for a bed to open up.”

There are several factors contributing to the scarcity of beds, including an existing hospital staffing shortage made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of appropriate discharge facilities.

Report authors offered a number of recommendations to federal, state, and local officials to increase the availability of state-run psychiatric hospital beds, including infrastructure changes involving recruiting and retaining staff for state hospitals and funding new discharge or step-down facilities so that patients have a place to recover when they leave the hospital.

Policy changes could also help, the report noted. Policymakers should consider “dismiss and transfer” procedures to address the backlog of nearly 6000 people with SMI waiting for a state hospital bed to achieve competency to stand trial. With “dismiss and transfer,” criminal charges are dismissed or suspended while an application for civil commitment is filed in the probate court. Once a civil commitment order has been issued, the individual is released to an outpatient commitment program for treatment.

“States must strive for prevention over punishment,” the report concluded.

There was no study funding reported, nor were disclosures available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, people living and working at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C., drank and showered in water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other industrial solvents. Now, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study has determined that the exposure markedly increased their risk for certain cancers.

In one of the largest cohort cancer incidence studies ever completed in the US, researchers compared cancer risk between 161,315 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune and 169,281 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., where the water was not contaminated.

Data from diagnoses between 1996 and 2017 documented 12,083 cancers among Camp Lejeune Marine and Navy personnel and 1,563 among civilian workers. By comparison, 12,144 cancers were documented among Camp Pendleton personnel and 1,372 among civilian workers. However, personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985 had at least a 20% higher risk for all myeloid cancers including polycythemia vera, acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, and cancers of the esophagus, larynx, soft tissue, and thyroid. Civilian workers had a higher risk for all myeloid cancers, squamous cell lung cancer, and female ductal breast cancer.

The water exposures included contributions to total internal body dose from 3 routes: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal. The researchers note that a Marine in training may consume as much as 6 liters a day of drinking water, but the combined dose from inhalation and dermal routes could be as high or higher than that from ingestion. For example, they note that an internal dose via inhalation to TCE during a 10-minute shower could equal the internal dose via ingestion of 2 liters of contaminated drinking water.

Health risks at Camp Lejeune have been studied before, but this study “more fully establishes the scope,” Richard Clapp, a Boston University emeritus public health professor, told the Associated Press.

For years, people living and working at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C., drank and showered in water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other industrial solvents. Now, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study has determined that the exposure markedly increased their risk for certain cancers.

In one of the largest cohort cancer incidence studies ever completed in the US, researchers compared cancer risk between 161,315 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune and 169,281 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., where the water was not contaminated.

Data from diagnoses between 1996 and 2017 documented 12,083 cancers among Camp Lejeune Marine and Navy personnel and 1,563 among civilian workers. By comparison, 12,144 cancers were documented among Camp Pendleton personnel and 1,372 among civilian workers. However, personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985 had at least a 20% higher risk for all myeloid cancers including polycythemia vera, acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, and cancers of the esophagus, larynx, soft tissue, and thyroid. Civilian workers had a higher risk for all myeloid cancers, squamous cell lung cancer, and female ductal breast cancer.

The water exposures included contributions to total internal body dose from 3 routes: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal. The researchers note that a Marine in training may consume as much as 6 liters a day of drinking water, but the combined dose from inhalation and dermal routes could be as high or higher than that from ingestion. For example, they note that an internal dose via inhalation to TCE during a 10-minute shower could equal the internal dose via ingestion of 2 liters of contaminated drinking water.

Health risks at Camp Lejeune have been studied before, but this study “more fully establishes the scope,” Richard Clapp, a Boston University emeritus public health professor, told the Associated Press.

For years, people living and working at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C., drank and showered in water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other industrial solvents. Now, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study has determined that the exposure markedly increased their risk for certain cancers.

In one of the largest cohort cancer incidence studies ever completed in the US, researchers compared cancer risk between 161,315 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune and 169,281 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., where the water was not contaminated.

Data from diagnoses between 1996 and 2017 documented 12,083 cancers among Camp Lejeune Marine and Navy personnel and 1,563 among civilian workers. By comparison, 12,144 cancers were documented among Camp Pendleton personnel and 1,372 among civilian workers. However, personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985 had at least a 20% higher risk for all myeloid cancers including polycythemia vera, acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, and cancers of the esophagus, larynx, soft tissue, and thyroid. Civilian workers had a higher risk for all myeloid cancers, squamous cell lung cancer, and female ductal breast cancer.

The water exposures included contributions to total internal body dose from 3 routes: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal. The researchers note that a Marine in training may consume as much as 6 liters a day of drinking water, but the combined dose from inhalation and dermal routes could be as high or higher than that from ingestion. For example, they note that an internal dose via inhalation to TCE during a 10-minute shower could equal the internal dose via ingestion of 2 liters of contaminated drinking water.

Health risks at Camp Lejeune have been studied before, but this study “more fully establishes the scope,” Richard Clapp, a Boston University emeritus public health professor, told the Associated Press.

Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.

The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.

Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.

“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.

For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”

The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.

For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk. 

“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”

The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms. 

Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers. 

For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.

Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.

The Case for Limiting Alcohol

While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk. 

A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day. 

In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.

“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.

The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.

Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.

“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.

For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”

The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.

For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk. 

“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”

The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms. 

Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers. 

For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.

Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.

The Case for Limiting Alcohol

While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk. 

A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day. 

In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.

“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.

The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.

Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.

“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.

For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”

The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.

For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk. 

“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”

The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms. 

Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers. 

For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.

Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.

The Case for Limiting Alcohol

While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk. 

A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day. 

In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.

“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.