Neurology Reviews

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Sleep-related daytime dysfunction is associated with an almost threefold higher risk for motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome, a predementia condition characterized by slow gait and cognitive issues, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers included 445 older adults without dementia (mean age, 76 years; 57% women).
• Sleep components were assessed, and participants were classified as poor or good sleepers using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire.
• The primary outcome was incidence of MCR syndrome.
• The mean follow-up duration was 2.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 36 participants developed MCR syndrome.
• Poor sleepers had a higher risk for incident MCR syndrome, compared with good sleepers, after adjustment for age, sex, and educational level (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.0; P < .05). However, this association was no longer significant after further adjustment for depressive symptoms.
• Sleep-related daytime dysfunction, defined as excessive sleepiness and lower enthusiasm for activities, was the only sleep component linked to a significant risk for MCR syndrome in fully adjusted models (aHR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P < .05).
• Prevalent MCR syndrome was not significantly associated with poor sleep quality (odds ratio, 1.1), suggesting that the relationship is unidirectional.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing the relationship between sleep dysfunction and MCR [syndrome] risk is important because early intervention may offer the best hope for preventing dementia,” the investigators wrote.

“Our findings emphasize the need for screening for sleep issues. There’s potential that people could get help with their sleep issues and prevent cognitive decline later in life,” lead author Victoire Leroy, MD, PhD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, added in a press release. 

 

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Study limitations included the lack of objective sleep measurements and potential recall bias in self-reported sleep complaints, particularly among participants with cognitive issues. In addition, the relatively short follow-up period may have resulted in a lower number of incident MCR syndrome cases. The sample population was also predominantly White (80%), which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Sleep-related daytime dysfunction is associated with an almost threefold higher risk for motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome, a predementia condition characterized by slow gait and cognitive issues, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers included 445 older adults without dementia (mean age, 76 years; 57% women).
• Sleep components were assessed, and participants were classified as poor or good sleepers using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire.
• The primary outcome was incidence of MCR syndrome.
• The mean follow-up duration was 2.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 36 participants developed MCR syndrome.
• Poor sleepers had a higher risk for incident MCR syndrome, compared with good sleepers, after adjustment for age, sex, and educational level (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.0; P < .05). However, this association was no longer significant after further adjustment for depressive symptoms.
• Sleep-related daytime dysfunction, defined as excessive sleepiness and lower enthusiasm for activities, was the only sleep component linked to a significant risk for MCR syndrome in fully adjusted models (aHR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P < .05).
• Prevalent MCR syndrome was not significantly associated with poor sleep quality (odds ratio, 1.1), suggesting that the relationship is unidirectional.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing the relationship between sleep dysfunction and MCR [syndrome] risk is important because early intervention may offer the best hope for preventing dementia,” the investigators wrote.

“Our findings emphasize the need for screening for sleep issues. There’s potential that people could get help with their sleep issues and prevent cognitive decline later in life,” lead author Victoire Leroy, MD, PhD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, added in a press release. 

 

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Study limitations included the lack of objective sleep measurements and potential recall bias in self-reported sleep complaints, particularly among participants with cognitive issues. In addition, the relatively short follow-up period may have resulted in a lower number of incident MCR syndrome cases. The sample population was also predominantly White (80%), which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Sleep-related daytime dysfunction is associated with an almost threefold higher risk for motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome, a predementia condition characterized by slow gait and cognitive issues, a new study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers included 445 older adults without dementia (mean age, 76 years; 57% women).
• Sleep components were assessed, and participants were classified as poor or good sleepers using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire.
• The primary outcome was incidence of MCR syndrome.
• The mean follow-up duration was 2.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 36 participants developed MCR syndrome.
• Poor sleepers had a higher risk for incident MCR syndrome, compared with good sleepers, after adjustment for age, sex, and educational level (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.0; P < .05). However, this association was no longer significant after further adjustment for depressive symptoms.
• Sleep-related daytime dysfunction, defined as excessive sleepiness and lower enthusiasm for activities, was the only sleep component linked to a significant risk for MCR syndrome in fully adjusted models (aHR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P < .05).
• Prevalent MCR syndrome was not significantly associated with poor sleep quality (odds ratio, 1.1), suggesting that the relationship is unidirectional.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing the relationship between sleep dysfunction and MCR [syndrome] risk is important because early intervention may offer the best hope for preventing dementia,” the investigators wrote.

“Our findings emphasize the need for screening for sleep issues. There’s potential that people could get help with their sleep issues and prevent cognitive decline later in life,” lead author Victoire Leroy, MD, PhD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, added in a press release. 

 

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Study limitations included the lack of objective sleep measurements and potential recall bias in self-reported sleep complaints, particularly among participants with cognitive issues. In addition, the relatively short follow-up period may have resulted in a lower number of incident MCR syndrome cases. The sample population was also predominantly White (80%), which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted fast-track approval for a groundbreaking gene therapy indicated for a rare genetic disorder called aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency. The gene therapy, marketed under the brand name Kebilidi, is the first in the United States to be injected directly into the brain. It is approved for children with fully developed skulls and for adults.

AADC is an enzyme that helps the body make dopamine. AADC deficiency affects patients’ physical, mental, and behavioral health from infancy, leading to severe disabilities and shorter lifespan. Children with AADC may also experience painful seizure-like episodes called oculogyric crises. 

Kebilidi (generic name: eladocagene exuparvovec) is injected into a specific area of the brain where it boosts AADC, restoring dopamine production and gradually improving movement-related symptoms. This surgery is to be performed only by brain surgeons in specialized centers.

The FDA approval was based on the therapy’s safety and effectiveness as shown in an ongoing clinical trial involving 13 children diagnosed with AADC deficiency. According to PTC Therapeutics, the maker of Kebilidi, long-term follow-up studies of the participants are still needed, and additional proof of the therapy’s benefits are required for full FDA approval.

Common side effects of Kebilidi therapy may include involuntary movements (dyskinesia), anemia, fever, low blood pressure, excessive salivation, problems sleeping, low blood levels of certain minerals, and complications after the injection, including breathing or heart problems. The surgical procedure for injecting Kebilidi also carries certain risks, such as cerebrospinal fluid leaks, bleeding in the brain, inflammation, strokes, and infections. 

 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted fast-track approval for a groundbreaking gene therapy indicated for a rare genetic disorder called aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency. The gene therapy, marketed under the brand name Kebilidi, is the first in the United States to be injected directly into the brain. It is approved for children with fully developed skulls and for adults.

AADC is an enzyme that helps the body make dopamine. AADC deficiency affects patients’ physical, mental, and behavioral health from infancy, leading to severe disabilities and shorter lifespan. Children with AADC may also experience painful seizure-like episodes called oculogyric crises. 

Kebilidi (generic name: eladocagene exuparvovec) is injected into a specific area of the brain where it boosts AADC, restoring dopamine production and gradually improving movement-related symptoms. This surgery is to be performed only by brain surgeons in specialized centers.

The FDA approval was based on the therapy’s safety and effectiveness as shown in an ongoing clinical trial involving 13 children diagnosed with AADC deficiency. According to PTC Therapeutics, the maker of Kebilidi, long-term follow-up studies of the participants are still needed, and additional proof of the therapy’s benefits are required for full FDA approval.

Common side effects of Kebilidi therapy may include involuntary movements (dyskinesia), anemia, fever, low blood pressure, excessive salivation, problems sleeping, low blood levels of certain minerals, and complications after the injection, including breathing or heart problems. The surgical procedure for injecting Kebilidi also carries certain risks, such as cerebrospinal fluid leaks, bleeding in the brain, inflammation, strokes, and infections. 

 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted fast-track approval for a groundbreaking gene therapy indicated for a rare genetic disorder called aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency. The gene therapy, marketed under the brand name Kebilidi, is the first in the United States to be injected directly into the brain. It is approved for children with fully developed skulls and for adults.

AADC is an enzyme that helps the body make dopamine. AADC deficiency affects patients’ physical, mental, and behavioral health from infancy, leading to severe disabilities and shorter lifespan. Children with AADC may also experience painful seizure-like episodes called oculogyric crises. 

Kebilidi (generic name: eladocagene exuparvovec) is injected into a specific area of the brain where it boosts AADC, restoring dopamine production and gradually improving movement-related symptoms. This surgery is to be performed only by brain surgeons in specialized centers.

The FDA approval was based on the therapy’s safety and effectiveness as shown in an ongoing clinical trial involving 13 children diagnosed with AADC deficiency. According to PTC Therapeutics, the maker of Kebilidi, long-term follow-up studies of the participants are still needed, and additional proof of the therapy’s benefits are required for full FDA approval.

Common side effects of Kebilidi therapy may include involuntary movements (dyskinesia), anemia, fever, low blood pressure, excessive salivation, problems sleeping, low blood levels of certain minerals, and complications after the injection, including breathing or heart problems. The surgical procedure for injecting Kebilidi also carries certain risks, such as cerebrospinal fluid leaks, bleeding in the brain, inflammation, strokes, and infections. 

 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Conditions like diabetes and dementia are common in patients who are admitted to long-term care facilities, but aggressive management of these conditions in long-term care residents is not recommended, according to a presentation given at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

Hospitalizations for hypoglycemia are risky for patients with diabetes who are residents of long-term care facilities, particularly those aged 75 years or older, said Adam Gurau, MD, a family physician in Toronto. Gurau completed a fellowship in care of the elderly at the University of Toronto, in Ontario, Canada.

“A lot of studies have shown diabetes-related hospitalizations,” said Gurau. He cited a 2014 study that found that hypoglycemia hospitalization rates were twice as high in older patients (age, 75 years or older) as in younger patients (age, 65-74 years).

“It is important to keep in mind that our residents in long-term care are at increasing risk for hypoglycemia, and we really should try to reduce [this risk] and not use dangerous medications or potentially dangerous [means of] diabetes management,” said Gurau.

A Canadian study that examined the composite risk for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or death within 30 days of reaching intensive glycemic control with high-risk agents (such as insulin or sulfonylureas) suggested little benefit and possible harm in using these agents in adults aged 75 years or older.

In addition, current guidelines on diabetes management encourage a different approach. “Looking at some of the more recent North American guidelines, many of them actually now recommend relaxing glycemic targets to reduce overtreatment and prevent hypoglycemia,” said Gurau.

 

Deprescribing Medications

Medication reviews present opportunities for taking a global view of a patient’s treatments and determining whether any drug can be removed from the list. “What we want to do is optimize medications,” said Gurau. “We’re not talking about adding medications. We’re talking about removing medications, which is, I think, what we should be doing.”

Some research suggests that patients are open to deprescribing. One survey examined older adults (mean age, 79.1 years) with three or more chronic conditions who had been prescribed at least five medications. The researchers found that most participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more medicines if a doctor advised that it was possible. “General practitioners may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use,” the researchers wrote.

About 62% of seniors living in a residential care home have a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or another dementia, according to the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Evidence suggests that nonpharmacologic approaches, such as massage and touch therapy and music, can manage neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as aggression and agitation, that are associated with dementia in older adults, noted Gurau.

“We want to focus on nonpharmacologic approaches for many of these [long-term care] residents,” said Gurau. “We have to do as much as we can to exhaust all the nonpharmacologic approaches.”

 

Preventing Hospitalizations

Another challenge to tackle in long-term care is the unnecessary transfer of residents to hospital emergency departments, according to Gurau. “In many situations, it’s worth trying as hard as we can to treat them in the nursing home, as opposed to having them go to hospital.”

Researchers estimated that 25% of the transfers from long-term care facilities in Canada to hospital emergency departments in 2014 were potentially preventable.

Urinary tract infections accounted for 30% of hospital emergency department visits for potentially preventable conditions by older patients who are residents in long-term care, according to 2013-2014 data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

“There are lots of downsides to going to the hospital [from long-term care],” Gurau told this news organization. “There are risks for infections, risks for increasing delirium and agitation [in patients with dementia], and risks for other behavior that can really impact somebody’s life.”

Gurau reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

In our previous case-based review, I teased the opportunity to use biomarkers to increase the accuracy and expediency of the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). These tests are no longer confined to the research setting but are now available to specialists and primary care clinicians alike. Given that most cognitive disorders are first identified in primary care, however, I believe that their greatest impact will be in our clinical space.

The pathologic processes associated with AD can be detected approximately 2 decades before the advent of clinical symptoms, and the symptomatic period of cognitive impairment is estimated to occupy just the final third of the disease course of AD. Using imaging studies, primarily PET, as well as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and even blood biomarkers for beta amyloid and tau, the pathologic drivers of AD, clinicians can identify patients with AD pathology before any symptoms are present. Importantly for our present-day interventions, the application of biomarkers can also help to diagnose AD earlier.

Amyloid PET identifies one of the earliest markers of potential AD, but a barrier common to advanced diagnostic imaging has been cost. Medicare has now approved coverage for amyloid PET in cases of suspected cognitive impairment. In a large study of more than 16,000 older adults in the United States, PET scans were positive in 55.3% of cases with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The PET positivity rate among adults with other dementia was 70.1%. The application of PET resulted in a change in care in more than 60% of patients with MCI and dementia. One quarter of participants had their diagnosis changed from AD to another form of dementia, and 10% were changed from a diagnosis of other dementia to AD.

Liquid biomarkers can involve either CSF or blood samples. To date, CSF testing has yielded more consistent results and has defined protocols for assessment. Still, collection of CSF is more challenging than collection of blood, and patients and their families may object to lumbar puncture. CSF assessment therefore remains generally in the province of specialists and research centers.

Primary care clinicians have been waiting for a reliable blood-based biomarker for AD, and that wait may be about to end. A study published in July 2024 included 1213 adults being evaluated for cognitive symptoms in Sweden. They completed a test measuring the ratio of phosphorylated tau 217 vs nonphosphorylated tau 217, with or without a test for serum amyloid ratios as well. These tests were compared with clinicians’ clinical diagnoses as well as CSF results, which were considered the gold standard.

Using only clinical tools, primary care clinicians’ and specialists’ diagnostic accuracy for MCI and dementia were just 61% and 73%, respectively. These values were substantially weaker vs the performance of either the serum tau or amyloid ratios (both 90% accurate). The authors concluded that serum testing has the potential to improve clinical care of patients with cognitive impairment.

Where does that leave us today? Commercially available blood biomarkers are available now which use different tests and cutoff values. These may be helpful but will probably be difficult to compare and interpret for primary care clinicians. In addition, insurance is less likely to cover these tests. Amyloid PET scans are a very reasonable option to augment clinician judgment of suspected cognitive impairment, but not all geographic areas will have ready access to this imaging study.

Still, it is an exciting time to have more objective tools at our disposal to identify MCI and AD. These tools can only be optimized by clinicians who recognize symptoms and perform the baseline testing necessary to determine pretest probability of MCI or dementia.

Charles P. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

In our previous case-based review, I teased the opportunity to use biomarkers to increase the accuracy and expediency of the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). These tests are no longer confined to the research setting but are now available to specialists and primary care clinicians alike. Given that most cognitive disorders are first identified in primary care, however, I believe that their greatest impact will be in our clinical space.

The pathologic processes associated with AD can be detected approximately 2 decades before the advent of clinical symptoms, and the symptomatic period of cognitive impairment is estimated to occupy just the final third of the disease course of AD. Using imaging studies, primarily PET, as well as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and even blood biomarkers for beta amyloid and tau, the pathologic drivers of AD, clinicians can identify patients with AD pathology before any symptoms are present. Importantly for our present-day interventions, the application of biomarkers can also help to diagnose AD earlier.

Amyloid PET identifies one of the earliest markers of potential AD, but a barrier common to advanced diagnostic imaging has been cost. Medicare has now approved coverage for amyloid PET in cases of suspected cognitive impairment. In a large study of more than 16,000 older adults in the United States, PET scans were positive in 55.3% of cases with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The PET positivity rate among adults with other dementia was 70.1%. The application of PET resulted in a change in care in more than 60% of patients with MCI and dementia. One quarter of participants had their diagnosis changed from AD to another form of dementia, and 10% were changed from a diagnosis of other dementia to AD.

Liquid biomarkers can involve either CSF or blood samples. To date, CSF testing has yielded more consistent results and has defined protocols for assessment. Still, collection of CSF is more challenging than collection of blood, and patients and their families may object to lumbar puncture. CSF assessment therefore remains generally in the province of specialists and research centers.

Primary care clinicians have been waiting for a reliable blood-based biomarker for AD, and that wait may be about to end. A study published in July 2024 included 1213 adults being evaluated for cognitive symptoms in Sweden. They completed a test measuring the ratio of phosphorylated tau 217 vs nonphosphorylated tau 217, with or without a test for serum amyloid ratios as well. These tests were compared with clinicians’ clinical diagnoses as well as CSF results, which were considered the gold standard.

Using only clinical tools, primary care clinicians’ and specialists’ diagnostic accuracy for MCI and dementia were just 61% and 73%, respectively. These values were substantially weaker vs the performance of either the serum tau or amyloid ratios (both 90% accurate). The authors concluded that serum testing has the potential to improve clinical care of patients with cognitive impairment.

Where does that leave us today? Commercially available blood biomarkers are available now which use different tests and cutoff values. These may be helpful but will probably be difficult to compare and interpret for primary care clinicians. In addition, insurance is less likely to cover these tests. Amyloid PET scans are a very reasonable option to augment clinician judgment of suspected cognitive impairment, but not all geographic areas will have ready access to this imaging study.

Still, it is an exciting time to have more objective tools at our disposal to identify MCI and AD. These tools can only be optimized by clinicians who recognize symptoms and perform the baseline testing necessary to determine pretest probability of MCI or dementia.

Charles P. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

In our previous case-based review, I teased the opportunity to use biomarkers to increase the accuracy and expediency of the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). These tests are no longer confined to the research setting but are now available to specialists and primary care clinicians alike. Given that most cognitive disorders are first identified in primary care, however, I believe that their greatest impact will be in our clinical space.

The pathologic processes associated with AD can be detected approximately 2 decades before the advent of clinical symptoms, and the symptomatic period of cognitive impairment is estimated to occupy just the final third of the disease course of AD. Using imaging studies, primarily PET, as well as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and even blood biomarkers for beta amyloid and tau, the pathologic drivers of AD, clinicians can identify patients with AD pathology before any symptoms are present. Importantly for our present-day interventions, the application of biomarkers can also help to diagnose AD earlier.

Amyloid PET identifies one of the earliest markers of potential AD, but a barrier common to advanced diagnostic imaging has been cost. Medicare has now approved coverage for amyloid PET in cases of suspected cognitive impairment. In a large study of more than 16,000 older adults in the United States, PET scans were positive in 55.3% of cases with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The PET positivity rate among adults with other dementia was 70.1%. The application of PET resulted in a change in care in more than 60% of patients with MCI and dementia. One quarter of participants had their diagnosis changed from AD to another form of dementia, and 10% were changed from a diagnosis of other dementia to AD.

Liquid biomarkers can involve either CSF or blood samples. To date, CSF testing has yielded more consistent results and has defined protocols for assessment. Still, collection of CSF is more challenging than collection of blood, and patients and their families may object to lumbar puncture. CSF assessment therefore remains generally in the province of specialists and research centers.

Primary care clinicians have been waiting for a reliable blood-based biomarker for AD, and that wait may be about to end. A study published in July 2024 included 1213 adults being evaluated for cognitive symptoms in Sweden. They completed a test measuring the ratio of phosphorylated tau 217 vs nonphosphorylated tau 217, with or without a test for serum amyloid ratios as well. These tests were compared with clinicians’ clinical diagnoses as well as CSF results, which were considered the gold standard.

Using only clinical tools, primary care clinicians’ and specialists’ diagnostic accuracy for MCI and dementia were just 61% and 73%, respectively. These values were substantially weaker vs the performance of either the serum tau or amyloid ratios (both 90% accurate). The authors concluded that serum testing has the potential to improve clinical care of patients with cognitive impairment.

Where does that leave us today? Commercially available blood biomarkers are available now which use different tests and cutoff values. These may be helpful but will probably be difficult to compare and interpret for primary care clinicians. In addition, insurance is less likely to cover these tests. Amyloid PET scans are a very reasonable option to augment clinician judgment of suspected cognitive impairment, but not all geographic areas will have ready access to this imaging study.

Still, it is an exciting time to have more objective tools at our disposal to identify MCI and AD. These tools can only be optimized by clinicians who recognize symptoms and perform the baseline testing necessary to determine pretest probability of MCI or dementia.

Charles P. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.

What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured? 
 

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide. 

The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.

When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)

 

Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?

Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.

It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.

Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.

 

Areas of Concern

There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.

DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%. 

There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program. 

Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.

 

Legal Challenges and Legislation

On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.

Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.

However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”

It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics. 

Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.

 

Who’s Guarding the Hen House?

The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”

HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements. 

So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

WASHINGTON — Colchicine does not protect against major cardiovascular adverse events after an acute myocardial infarction, according to a multinational placebo-controlled trial of more than 7000 patients.

The CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) study, called “the largest trial ever of colchicine in acute MI,” showed no hint of benefit in an adverse event curve for colchicine relative to placebo over 5 years, which suggests that the role of this drug after myocardial infarction (MI) “is uncertain,” Sanjit Jolly, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Hamilton Health Sciences and a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reported at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2024.

For the primary composite outcome — cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization — the event curves in the colchicine and placebo groups remained essentially superimposed over 5 years of follow-up, with only a slight separation after 4 years. The hazard ratio for the primary endpoint showed a 1% difference in favor of colchicine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; P = .93).

There were no meaningful differences in any of the individual endpoint components; all 95% CIs straddled the line of unity. Rates of cardiovascular death (3.3% vs 3.2%) and stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%) were numerically higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. Rates of MI (2.9% vs 3.1%) and ischemia-driven revascularization (4.6% vs 4.7%) were numerically lower in the colchicine group.

 

No Difference

No adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (4.6% vs 5.1%), approached significance, with the exception of noncardiovascular death (13.0% vs 1.9%). For this outcome, the 95% CI stopped just short of the line of unity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99).

Rates of adverse events (31.9% vs 31.7%; P = .86), serious adverse events (6.7% vs 7.4%; P = .22), and serious infections (2.5% vs 2.9%; P = .85) were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, but diarrhea, a known side effect of colchicine, was higher in the colchicine group (10.2% vs 6.6%; P < .001).

Given these results, a panelist questioned the use of the word “uncertain” to describe the findings during the late-breaker session in which these results were presented.

“I think you are selling yourself short,” said J. Dawn Abbott, MD, director of the Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Training Program at the Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Based on the size and conduct of this trial, she called the results “definitive” and suggested that the guidelines should be adjusted.

 

The OASIS 9 Trial

In OASIS 9, 3528 patients were randomized to colchicine, and 3534 were randomized to placebo. A second randomization in both groups was to spironolactone or placebo; these results will be presented at the upcoming American Heart Association (AHA) 2024 meeting. Both analyses will be published in The New England Journal of Medicine at that time, Jolly reported.

The study involved 104 sites in Australia, Egypt, Europe, Nepal, and North America. Follow-up in both groups exceeded 99%. Most patients had an ST-elevation MI (STEMI), but about 5% of those enrolled had a non-STEMI. Less than 10% of patients had experienced a previous MI.

Less than 5% of patients were discharged on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 therapy, and more than 95% were discharged on aspirin and a statin. Nearly 80% were discharged on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and most patients received an anticoagulant. More than 95% of patients were implanted with a drug-eluting stent.

At month 3, C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group. C-reactive protein is a biomarker for the anti-inflammatory effect that is considered to be colchicine’s primary mechanism of action. An anti-inflammatory effect has been cited as the probable explanation for the positive results shown in the COLCOT and LODOCO2 trials, published in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

In COLCOT, which randomized 4745 patients who experienced an acute MI in the previous 30 days, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in a composite major cardiovascular adverse events endpoint relative to placebo (HR, 0.77; P = .02). In LODOCO2, which randomized 5522 patients with chronic coronary disease, colchicine was associated with a 31% reduction in an adverse event composite endpoint (HR, 0.68; P < .0001).

However, two more recent trials — CONVINCE and CHANCE-3 — showed no difference between colchicine and placebo for the endpoint of recurrent stroke at 90 days. CONVINCE, with approximately 3000 patients, was relatively small, whereas CHANCE-3 randomized more than 8000 patients and showed no effect on the risk for stroke (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16).

 

New Data Challenge Guidelines

Of these trials, COLCOT was the most similar to OASIS 9, according to Jolly. Among the differences, OASIS 9 was initiated earlier and was larger than the other trials, so it had more power to address the study question.

Given the absence of benefit, Jolly indicated that OASIS 9 might disrupt both the joint American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines, which gave colchicine a class 2b recommendation in 2023, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which gave colchicine a 2a recommendation.

“This is a big deal for me,” said Ajay J. Kirtane, director of the Interventional Cardiovascular Care program at Columbia University in New York City. As someone who is now using colchicine routinely, these data have changed his opinion.

The previous data supporting the use of colchicine “were just so-so,” he explained. “Now I have a good rationale” for foregoing the routine use of this therapy.

Jolly said that he had put his own father on colchicine after an acute MI on the basis of the guidelines, but immediately took him off this therapy when the data from OASIS 9 were unblinded.

“The only signal from this trial was an increased risk of diarrhea,” Jolly said. The results, at the very least, suggest that colchicine “is not for everyone” after an acute MI, although he emphasized that these results do not rule out the potential for benefit from anti-inflammatory therapy. Ongoing trials, including one targeting interleukin 6, a cytokine associated with inflammation, remain of interest, he added.

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

Signs of frailty may signal future dementia more than a decade before cognitive symptoms occur, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.

Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.

“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

 

A Promising Biomarker

An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.

To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).

The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.

Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.

Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.

Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.

After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.

Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.

When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).

Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.

In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.

Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.

In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.

 

The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention

The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.

To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.

Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.

Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.

 

Unclear Pathway

Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.

The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.

“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.

The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Signs of frailty may signal future dementia more than a decade before cognitive symptoms occur, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.

Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.

“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

 

A Promising Biomarker

An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.

To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).

The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.

Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.

Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.

Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.

After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.

Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.

When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).

Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.

In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.

Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.

In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.

 

The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention

The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.

To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.

Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.

Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.

 

Unclear Pathway

Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.

The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.

“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.

The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Signs of frailty may signal future dementia more than a decade before cognitive symptoms occur, in new findings that may provide a potential opportunity to identify high-risk populations for targeted enrollment in clinical trials of dementia prevention and treatment.

Results of an international study assessing frailty trajectories showed frailty levels notably increased in the 4-9 years before dementia diagnosis. Even among study participants whose baseline frailty measurement was taken prior to that acceleration period, frailty was still positively associated with dementia risk, the investigators noted.

“We found that with every four to five additional health problems, there is on average a 40% higher risk of developing dementia, while the risk is lower for people who are more physically fit,” said study investigator David Ward, PhD, of the Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

 

A Promising Biomarker

An accessible biomarker for both biologic age and dementia risk is essential for advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies, the investigators noted, adding that growing evidence suggests frailty may be a promising candidate for this role.

To learn more about the association between frailty and dementia, Ward and his team analyzed data on 29,849 participants aged 60 years or above (mean age, 71.6 years; 62% women) who participated in four cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA; n = 6771), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; n = 9045), the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP; n = 1451), and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC; n = 12,582).

The primary outcome was all-cause dementia. Depending on the cohort, dementia diagnoses were determined through cognitive testing, self- or family report of physician diagnosis, or a diagnosis by the study physician. Participants were excluded if they had cognitive impairment at baseline.

Investigators retrospectively determined frailty index scores by gathering information on health and functional outcomes for participants from each cohort. Only participants with frailty data on at least 30 deficits were included.

Commonly included deficits included high blood pressure, cancer, and chronic pain, as well as functional problems such as hearing impairment, difficulty with mobility, and challenges managing finances.

Investigators conducted follow-up visits with participants until they developed dementia or until the study ended, with follow-up periods varying across cohorts.

After adjustment for potential confounders, frailty scores were modeled using backward time scales.

Among participants who developed incident dementia (n = 3154), covariate-adjusted expected frailty index scores were, on average, higher in women than in men by 18.5% in ELSA, 20.9% in HRS, and 16.2% in MAP. There were no differences in frailty scores between sexes in the NACC cohort.

When measured on a timeline, as compared with those who didn’t develop dementia, frailty scores were significantly and consistently higher in the dementia groups 8-20 before dementia onset (20 years in HRS; 13 in MAP; 12 in ELSA; 8 in NACC).

Increases in the rates of frailty index scores began accelerating 4-9 years before dementia onset for the various cohorts, investigators noted.

In all four cohorts, each 0.1 increase in frailty scores was positively associated with increased dementia risk.

Adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.73 in the NACC cohort, which showed the strongest association.

In participants whose baseline frailty measurement was conducted before the predementia acceleration period began, the association of frailty scores and dementia risk was positive. These aHRs ranged from 1.18 in the HRS cohort to 1.43 in the NACC cohort.

 

The ‘Four Pillars’ of Prevention

The good news, investigators said, is that the long trajectory of frailty symptoms preceding dementia onset provides plenty of opportunity for intervention.

To slow the development of frailty, Ward suggested adhering to the “four pillars of frailty prevention and management,” which include good nutrition with plenty of protein, exercise, optimizing medications for chronic conditions, and maintaining a strong social network.

Ward suggested neurologists track frailty in their patients and pointed to a recent article focused on helping neurologists use frailty measures to influence care planning.

Study limitations include the possibility of reverse causality and the fact that investigators could not adjust for genetic risk for dementia.

 

Unclear Pathway

Commenting on the findings, Lycia Neumann, PhD, senior director of Health Services Research at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that many studies over the years have shown a link between frailty and dementia. However, she cautioned that a link does not imply causation.

The pathway from frailty to dementia is not 100% clear, and both are complex conditions, said Neumann, who was not part of the study.

“Adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors early and consistently can help decrease the risk of — or postpone the onset of — both frailty and cognitive decline,” she said. Neumann added that physical activity, a healthy diet, social engagement, and controlling diabetes and blood pressure can also reduce the risk for dementia as well as cardiovascular disease.

The study was funded in part by the Deep Dementia Phenotyping Network through the Frailty and Dementia Special Interest Group. Ward and Neumann reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Smoldering-associated worsening (SAW) of multiple sclerosis (MS) deserves a broader, more comprehensive approach to diagnosis, treatment, and research that goes beyond neurologists’ understanding of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), according to a recently published international consensus. However, an outside expert said that promulgating the “smoldering” concept may stoke patient and provider confusion.

Although current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS exclusively target focal white matter (WM) inflammation, wrote authors lead by Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London in England, many people with MS experience worsening disability in a more indolent fashion — despite stable inflammatory markers.

“The gradual accumulation of physical and cognitive disability is driven by smoldering pathological processes via biological substrates, which are different from those of acute focal damage, remain an important unmet therapeutic target,” they wrote.

The same research team first described smoldering MS in a 2022 publication. In the present paper, Scalfari and colleagues reviewed emerging clinical, radiological, and pathological evidence and presented 29 consensus statements in areas ranging from the definition, pathology, and clinical manifestations of smoldering MS to appropriate biomarkers and best clinical practices.

 

Definition

By definition, the authors wrote, SAW encompasses PIRA but also includes a range of gradually worsening, relapse-independent symptoms that remain undetectable on standard assessments, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or EDSS-Plus, especially in early disease. To capture symptoms such as subtle motor impairment, cognitive slowing, and fatigue, Scalfari and colleagues recommend tools such as neurological stress tests, fatigue/mood scales, wearable devices, and patient reported outcomes.

Disease Mechanisms

Pathologically, the authors wrote, smoldering MS may stem from intrinsic central nervous system processes that likely incorporate various glial, immune, and neural cells. Smoldering MS also could contribute to aging, and vice versa, the latter possibly through dynamics such as age-related exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms, reduction in remyelination efficiency, and telomere shortening, they added.

Clinical Implementation

Current MS management rests on crude estimates of physical disability and overemphasizes identifying relapses and new MRI lesions as the principal markers of disease activity, wrote Scalfari and colleagues. Instead, they suggested combining motor-associated assessments such as EDSS-Plus with cognitive gauges such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis.

Providers are uncomfortable identifying and discussing smoldering MS, authors allowed, because no licensed treatments target SAW. However, the authors wrote, a principal reason for discussing smoldering MS with patients is to help manage their expectations of current DMTs, which may have little effect on SAW.

 

‘More Than Lesions’

Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MAS, professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said that it is extremely important to raise awareness of physicians’ emerging understanding that “there is more going on in MS than lesions and relapses,” a concept that has been a work in progress for several years. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

A 2019 report on the EPIC cohort coauthored by Cree labeled the disconnect between disability accumulation and relapse occurrence “silent progression.” The observation that disability accumulates in early relapsing MS independent of relapsing activity has been replicated in virtually every dataset worldwide, he added.

“What I don’t like about this article is the reliance on the term ‘smoldering’ and the acceptance that this is an actual phenomenon supported by data.” And authors’ leveraging “smoldering” into additional acronyms such as SAW likely will confuse rather than clarify physicians’ and patients’ understanding of the situation, Cree added. “Clinicians don’t need yet another snappy acronym.” Many are still trying to grasp the PIRA concept in relapsing MS, he said.

“One of the reasons this topic has become so important is that we recognize that even when we have very good control of relapsing disease activity — clinical relapses as well as radiographic large lesion formation on MRI — some patients still develop insidious worsening of disability. And the reasons for that are not well understood,” said Cree.

Accumulating disability absent relapse activity could stem from any number of microscopic inflammatory processes, possibly involving abnormal microglial activation, fibrinogen deposition, microscopic inflammatory infiltrates of CD8-positive T cells, or mitochondrial damage from iron deposition, he said. Or the processes driving PIRA may not even involve inflammation, he added. “We still don’t have a unifying way of understanding how these processes work.”

Cree suspects that, despite investigators’ good intentions, the study’s sponsor, Sanofi, may have influenced the resultant messaging. The company’s tolebrutinib recently completed phase 3 trials in secondary progressive MS and relapsing MS, and a phase 3 trial in primary progressive MS is scheduled for completion in 2025. “A hallmark of Sanofi’s messaging has been this idea that there is smoldering inflammation occurring in MS that tolebrutinib is going to address,” he said.

If clinicians really knew what drove progressive MS, said Cree, “we would be keen on developing therapies targeting that fundamental process. But because we don’t know what’s driving it, we don’t know what to go after.”

The study was supported by Sanofi. Cree is a coauthor of the GEMINI 1 and GEMINI 2 tolebrutinib studies.

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

Smoldering-associated worsening (SAW) of multiple sclerosis (MS) deserves a broader, more comprehensive approach to diagnosis, treatment, and research that goes beyond neurologists’ understanding of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), according to a recently published international consensus. However, an outside expert said that promulgating the “smoldering” concept may stoke patient and provider confusion.

Although current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS exclusively target focal white matter (WM) inflammation, wrote authors lead by Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London in England, many people with MS experience worsening disability in a more indolent fashion — despite stable inflammatory markers.

“The gradual accumulation of physical and cognitive disability is driven by smoldering pathological processes via biological substrates, which are different from those of acute focal damage, remain an important unmet therapeutic target,” they wrote.

The same research team first described smoldering MS in a 2022 publication. In the present paper, Scalfari and colleagues reviewed emerging clinical, radiological, and pathological evidence and presented 29 consensus statements in areas ranging from the definition, pathology, and clinical manifestations of smoldering MS to appropriate biomarkers and best clinical practices.

 

Definition

By definition, the authors wrote, SAW encompasses PIRA but also includes a range of gradually worsening, relapse-independent symptoms that remain undetectable on standard assessments, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or EDSS-Plus, especially in early disease. To capture symptoms such as subtle motor impairment, cognitive slowing, and fatigue, Scalfari and colleagues recommend tools such as neurological stress tests, fatigue/mood scales, wearable devices, and patient reported outcomes.

Disease Mechanisms

Pathologically, the authors wrote, smoldering MS may stem from intrinsic central nervous system processes that likely incorporate various glial, immune, and neural cells. Smoldering MS also could contribute to aging, and vice versa, the latter possibly through dynamics such as age-related exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms, reduction in remyelination efficiency, and telomere shortening, they added.

Clinical Implementation

Current MS management rests on crude estimates of physical disability and overemphasizes identifying relapses and new MRI lesions as the principal markers of disease activity, wrote Scalfari and colleagues. Instead, they suggested combining motor-associated assessments such as EDSS-Plus with cognitive gauges such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis.

Providers are uncomfortable identifying and discussing smoldering MS, authors allowed, because no licensed treatments target SAW. However, the authors wrote, a principal reason for discussing smoldering MS with patients is to help manage their expectations of current DMTs, which may have little effect on SAW.

 

‘More Than Lesions’

Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MAS, professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said that it is extremely important to raise awareness of physicians’ emerging understanding that “there is more going on in MS than lesions and relapses,” a concept that has been a work in progress for several years. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

A 2019 report on the EPIC cohort coauthored by Cree labeled the disconnect between disability accumulation and relapse occurrence “silent progression.” The observation that disability accumulates in early relapsing MS independent of relapsing activity has been replicated in virtually every dataset worldwide, he added.

“What I don’t like about this article is the reliance on the term ‘smoldering’ and the acceptance that this is an actual phenomenon supported by data.” And authors’ leveraging “smoldering” into additional acronyms such as SAW likely will confuse rather than clarify physicians’ and patients’ understanding of the situation, Cree added. “Clinicians don’t need yet another snappy acronym.” Many are still trying to grasp the PIRA concept in relapsing MS, he said.

“One of the reasons this topic has become so important is that we recognize that even when we have very good control of relapsing disease activity — clinical relapses as well as radiographic large lesion formation on MRI — some patients still develop insidious worsening of disability. And the reasons for that are not well understood,” said Cree.

Accumulating disability absent relapse activity could stem from any number of microscopic inflammatory processes, possibly involving abnormal microglial activation, fibrinogen deposition, microscopic inflammatory infiltrates of CD8-positive T cells, or mitochondrial damage from iron deposition, he said. Or the processes driving PIRA may not even involve inflammation, he added. “We still don’t have a unifying way of understanding how these processes work.”

Cree suspects that, despite investigators’ good intentions, the study’s sponsor, Sanofi, may have influenced the resultant messaging. The company’s tolebrutinib recently completed phase 3 trials in secondary progressive MS and relapsing MS, and a phase 3 trial in primary progressive MS is scheduled for completion in 2025. “A hallmark of Sanofi’s messaging has been this idea that there is smoldering inflammation occurring in MS that tolebrutinib is going to address,” he said.

If clinicians really knew what drove progressive MS, said Cree, “we would be keen on developing therapies targeting that fundamental process. But because we don’t know what’s driving it, we don’t know what to go after.”

The study was supported by Sanofi. Cree is a coauthor of the GEMINI 1 and GEMINI 2 tolebrutinib studies.

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

Smoldering-associated worsening (SAW) of multiple sclerosis (MS) deserves a broader, more comprehensive approach to diagnosis, treatment, and research that goes beyond neurologists’ understanding of progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), according to a recently published international consensus. However, an outside expert said that promulgating the “smoldering” concept may stoke patient and provider confusion.

Although current disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS exclusively target focal white matter (WM) inflammation, wrote authors lead by Antonio Scalfari, MD, PhD, of Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London in England, many people with MS experience worsening disability in a more indolent fashion — despite stable inflammatory markers.

“The gradual accumulation of physical and cognitive disability is driven by smoldering pathological processes via biological substrates, which are different from those of acute focal damage, remain an important unmet therapeutic target,” they wrote.

The same research team first described smoldering MS in a 2022 publication. In the present paper, Scalfari and colleagues reviewed emerging clinical, radiological, and pathological evidence and presented 29 consensus statements in areas ranging from the definition, pathology, and clinical manifestations of smoldering MS to appropriate biomarkers and best clinical practices.

 

Definition

By definition, the authors wrote, SAW encompasses PIRA but also includes a range of gradually worsening, relapse-independent symptoms that remain undetectable on standard assessments, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) or EDSS-Plus, especially in early disease. To capture symptoms such as subtle motor impairment, cognitive slowing, and fatigue, Scalfari and colleagues recommend tools such as neurological stress tests, fatigue/mood scales, wearable devices, and patient reported outcomes.

Disease Mechanisms

Pathologically, the authors wrote, smoldering MS may stem from intrinsic central nervous system processes that likely incorporate various glial, immune, and neural cells. Smoldering MS also could contribute to aging, and vice versa, the latter possibly through dynamics such as age-related exhaustion of compensatory mechanisms, reduction in remyelination efficiency, and telomere shortening, they added.

Clinical Implementation

Current MS management rests on crude estimates of physical disability and overemphasizes identifying relapses and new MRI lesions as the principal markers of disease activity, wrote Scalfari and colleagues. Instead, they suggested combining motor-associated assessments such as EDSS-Plus with cognitive gauges such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis.

Providers are uncomfortable identifying and discussing smoldering MS, authors allowed, because no licensed treatments target SAW. However, the authors wrote, a principal reason for discussing smoldering MS with patients is to help manage their expectations of current DMTs, which may have little effect on SAW.

 

‘More Than Lesions’

Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, MAS, professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said that it is extremely important to raise awareness of physicians’ emerging understanding that “there is more going on in MS than lesions and relapses,” a concept that has been a work in progress for several years. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

A 2019 report on the EPIC cohort coauthored by Cree labeled the disconnect between disability accumulation and relapse occurrence “silent progression.” The observation that disability accumulates in early relapsing MS independent of relapsing activity has been replicated in virtually every dataset worldwide, he added.

“What I don’t like about this article is the reliance on the term ‘smoldering’ and the acceptance that this is an actual phenomenon supported by data.” And authors’ leveraging “smoldering” into additional acronyms such as SAW likely will confuse rather than clarify physicians’ and patients’ understanding of the situation, Cree added. “Clinicians don’t need yet another snappy acronym.” Many are still trying to grasp the PIRA concept in relapsing MS, he said.

“One of the reasons this topic has become so important is that we recognize that even when we have very good control of relapsing disease activity — clinical relapses as well as radiographic large lesion formation on MRI — some patients still develop insidious worsening of disability. And the reasons for that are not well understood,” said Cree.

Accumulating disability absent relapse activity could stem from any number of microscopic inflammatory processes, possibly involving abnormal microglial activation, fibrinogen deposition, microscopic inflammatory infiltrates of CD8-positive T cells, or mitochondrial damage from iron deposition, he said. Or the processes driving PIRA may not even involve inflammation, he added. “We still don’t have a unifying way of understanding how these processes work.”

Cree suspects that, despite investigators’ good intentions, the study’s sponsor, Sanofi, may have influenced the resultant messaging. The company’s tolebrutinib recently completed phase 3 trials in secondary progressive MS and relapsing MS, and a phase 3 trial in primary progressive MS is scheduled for completion in 2025. “A hallmark of Sanofi’s messaging has been this idea that there is smoldering inflammation occurring in MS that tolebrutinib is going to address,” he said.

If clinicians really knew what drove progressive MS, said Cree, “we would be keen on developing therapies targeting that fundamental process. But because we don’t know what’s driving it, we don’t know what to go after.”

The study was supported by Sanofi. Cree is a coauthor of the GEMINI 1 and GEMINI 2 tolebrutinib studies.

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