Getting drugs to the brain is difficult. The very thing designed to protect the brain’s environment — the blood-brain barrier (BBB) — is one of the main reasons diseases like Alzheimer’s are so hard to treat.

And even if a drug can cross the BBB, it’s difficult to ensure it reaches specific areas of the brain like the hippocampus, which is located deep within the brain and notoriously difficult to target with conventional drugs.

However, new research shows that novel bioengineered proteins can target neurons in the hippocampus. Using a mouse model, the researchers found that these proteins could be delivered to the hippocampus intranasally — through the nose via a spray.

“This is an urgent topic because many potential therapeutic agents do not readily cross the blood-brain barrier or have limited effects even after intranasal delivery,” said Konrad Talbot, PhD, professor of neurosurgery and pathology at Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, who was not involved in the study.

This is the first time a protein drug, which is larger than many drug molecules, has been specifically delivered to the hippocampus, said Noriyasu Kamei, PhD, a professor of pharmaceutical science at Kobe Gakuin University in Kobe, Japan, and lead author of the study.
 

How Did They Do It?

“Smuggle” may be a flip term, but it’s not inaccurate.

Insulin has the ability to cross the BBB, so the team began with insulin as the vehicle. By attaching other molecules to an insulin fragment, researchers theorized they could create an insulin fusion protein that can be transported across the BBB and into the brain via a process called macropinocytosis.

They executed this technique in mice by fusing florescent proteins to insulin. To treat Alzheimer’s or other diseases, they would want to fuse therapeutic molecules to the insulin for brain delivery — a future step for their research.

Other groups are studying a similar approach using transferrin receptor instead of insulin to shuttle molecules across the BBB. However, the transferrin receptor doesn’t make it to the hippocampus, Kamei said.

A benefit of their system, Kamei pointed out, is that because the method just requires a small piece of insulin to work, it’s straightforward to produce in bacteria. Importantly, he said, the insulin fusion protein should not affect blood glucose levels.
 

Why Insulin?

Aside from its ability to cross the BBB, the team thought to use insulin as the basis of a fusion protein because of their previous work.

“I found that insulin has the unique characteristics to be accumulated specifically in the hippocampal neuronal layers,” Kamei explained. That potential for accumulation is key, as they can deliver more of a drug that way.

In their past work, Kamei and colleagues also found that it could be delivered from the nose to the brain, indicating that it may be possible to use a simple nasal spray.

“The potential for noninvasive delivery of proteins by intranasal administration to the hippocampal neurons is novel,” said John Varghese, PhD, professor of neurology at University of California Los Angeles (he was not involved in the study). He noted that it’s also possible that this method could be harnessed to treat other brain diseases.

There are other drugs that treat central nervous system diseases, such as desmopressin and buserelin, which are available as nasal sprays. However, these drugs are synthetic hormones, and though relatively small molecules, they do not cross the BBB.

There are also antibody treatments for Alzheimer’s, such as aducanumab (which will soon be discontinued), lecanemab, and donanemab; however, they aren’t always effective and they require an intravenous infusion, and while they cross the BBB to a degree, to bolster delivery to the brain, studies have proposed additional methods like focused ultrasound.

“Neuronal uptake of drugs potentially therapeutic for Alzheimer’s may be significantly enhanced by fusion of those drugs with insulin. This should be a research priority,” said Talbot.

While this is exciting and has potential, such drugs won’t be available anytime soon. Kamei would like to complete the research at a basic level in 5 years, including testing insulin fused with larger proteins such as therapeutic antibodies. If all goes well, they’ll move on to testing insulin fusion drugs in people.
 

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

Getting drugs to the brain is difficult. The very thing designed to protect the brain’s environment — the blood-brain barrier (BBB) — is one of the main reasons diseases like Alzheimer’s are so hard to treat.

And even if a drug can cross the BBB, it’s difficult to ensure it reaches specific areas of the brain like the hippocampus, which is located deep within the brain and notoriously difficult to target with conventional drugs.

However, new research shows that novel bioengineered proteins can target neurons in the hippocampus. Using a mouse model, the researchers found that these proteins could be delivered to the hippocampus intranasally — through the nose via a spray.

“This is an urgent topic because many potential therapeutic agents do not readily cross the blood-brain barrier or have limited effects even after intranasal delivery,” said Konrad Talbot, PhD, professor of neurosurgery and pathology at Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, who was not involved in the study.

This is the first time a protein drug, which is larger than many drug molecules, has been specifically delivered to the hippocampus, said Noriyasu Kamei, PhD, a professor of pharmaceutical science at Kobe Gakuin University in Kobe, Japan, and lead author of the study.
 

How Did They Do It?

“Smuggle” may be a flip term, but it’s not inaccurate.

Insulin has the ability to cross the BBB, so the team began with insulin as the vehicle. By attaching other molecules to an insulin fragment, researchers theorized they could create an insulin fusion protein that can be transported across the BBB and into the brain via a process called macropinocytosis.

They executed this technique in mice by fusing florescent proteins to insulin. To treat Alzheimer’s or other diseases, they would want to fuse therapeutic molecules to the insulin for brain delivery — a future step for their research.

Other groups are studying a similar approach using transferrin receptor instead of insulin to shuttle molecules across the BBB. However, the transferrin receptor doesn’t make it to the hippocampus, Kamei said.

A benefit of their system, Kamei pointed out, is that because the method just requires a small piece of insulin to work, it’s straightforward to produce in bacteria. Importantly, he said, the insulin fusion protein should not affect blood glucose levels.
 

Why Insulin?

Aside from its ability to cross the BBB, the team thought to use insulin as the basis of a fusion protein because of their previous work.

“I found that insulin has the unique characteristics to be accumulated specifically in the hippocampal neuronal layers,” Kamei explained. That potential for accumulation is key, as they can deliver more of a drug that way.

In their past work, Kamei and colleagues also found that it could be delivered from the nose to the brain, indicating that it may be possible to use a simple nasal spray.

“The potential for noninvasive delivery of proteins by intranasal administration to the hippocampal neurons is novel,” said John Varghese, PhD, professor of neurology at University of California Los Angeles (he was not involved in the study). He noted that it’s also possible that this method could be harnessed to treat other brain diseases.

There are other drugs that treat central nervous system diseases, such as desmopressin and buserelin, which are available as nasal sprays. However, these drugs are synthetic hormones, and though relatively small molecules, they do not cross the BBB.

There are also antibody treatments for Alzheimer’s, such as aducanumab (which will soon be discontinued), lecanemab, and donanemab; however, they aren’t always effective and they require an intravenous infusion, and while they cross the BBB to a degree, to bolster delivery to the brain, studies have proposed additional methods like focused ultrasound.

“Neuronal uptake of drugs potentially therapeutic for Alzheimer’s may be significantly enhanced by fusion of those drugs with insulin. This should be a research priority,” said Talbot.

While this is exciting and has potential, such drugs won’t be available anytime soon. Kamei would like to complete the research at a basic level in 5 years, including testing insulin fused with larger proteins such as therapeutic antibodies. If all goes well, they’ll move on to testing insulin fusion drugs in people.
 

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

Getting drugs to the brain is difficult. The very thing designed to protect the brain’s environment — the blood-brain barrier (BBB) — is one of the main reasons diseases like Alzheimer’s are so hard to treat.

And even if a drug can cross the BBB, it’s difficult to ensure it reaches specific areas of the brain like the hippocampus, which is located deep within the brain and notoriously difficult to target with conventional drugs.

However, new research shows that novel bioengineered proteins can target neurons in the hippocampus. Using a mouse model, the researchers found that these proteins could be delivered to the hippocampus intranasally — through the nose via a spray.

“This is an urgent topic because many potential therapeutic agents do not readily cross the blood-brain barrier or have limited effects even after intranasal delivery,” said Konrad Talbot, PhD, professor of neurosurgery and pathology at Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, who was not involved in the study.

This is the first time a protein drug, which is larger than many drug molecules, has been specifically delivered to the hippocampus, said Noriyasu Kamei, PhD, a professor of pharmaceutical science at Kobe Gakuin University in Kobe, Japan, and lead author of the study.
 

How Did They Do It?

“Smuggle” may be a flip term, but it’s not inaccurate.

Insulin has the ability to cross the BBB, so the team began with insulin as the vehicle. By attaching other molecules to an insulin fragment, researchers theorized they could create an insulin fusion protein that can be transported across the BBB and into the brain via a process called macropinocytosis.

They executed this technique in mice by fusing florescent proteins to insulin. To treat Alzheimer’s or other diseases, they would want to fuse therapeutic molecules to the insulin for brain delivery — a future step for their research.

Other groups are studying a similar approach using transferrin receptor instead of insulin to shuttle molecules across the BBB. However, the transferrin receptor doesn’t make it to the hippocampus, Kamei said.

A benefit of their system, Kamei pointed out, is that because the method just requires a small piece of insulin to work, it’s straightforward to produce in bacteria. Importantly, he said, the insulin fusion protein should not affect blood glucose levels.
 

Why Insulin?

Aside from its ability to cross the BBB, the team thought to use insulin as the basis of a fusion protein because of their previous work.

“I found that insulin has the unique characteristics to be accumulated specifically in the hippocampal neuronal layers,” Kamei explained. That potential for accumulation is key, as they can deliver more of a drug that way.

In their past work, Kamei and colleagues also found that it could be delivered from the nose to the brain, indicating that it may be possible to use a simple nasal spray.

“The potential for noninvasive delivery of proteins by intranasal administration to the hippocampal neurons is novel,” said John Varghese, PhD, professor of neurology at University of California Los Angeles (he was not involved in the study). He noted that it’s also possible that this method could be harnessed to treat other brain diseases.

There are other drugs that treat central nervous system diseases, such as desmopressin and buserelin, which are available as nasal sprays. However, these drugs are synthetic hormones, and though relatively small molecules, they do not cross the BBB.

There are also antibody treatments for Alzheimer’s, such as aducanumab (which will soon be discontinued), lecanemab, and donanemab; however, they aren’t always effective and they require an intravenous infusion, and while they cross the BBB to a degree, to bolster delivery to the brain, studies have proposed additional methods like focused ultrasound.

“Neuronal uptake of drugs potentially therapeutic for Alzheimer’s may be significantly enhanced by fusion of those drugs with insulin. This should be a research priority,” said Talbot.

While this is exciting and has potential, such drugs won’t be available anytime soon. Kamei would like to complete the research at a basic level in 5 years, including testing insulin fused with larger proteins such as therapeutic antibodies. If all goes well, they’ll move on to testing insulin fusion drugs in people.
 

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

PHILADELPHIA — Pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia) is noninferior to quetiapine in patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis at 56 days, results from a phase 3 trial showed.

In the first prospective comparison of the two antipsychotics in this patient population, pimavanserin yielded significant improvement across all parameters of efficacy without worsening motor symptoms and was very well tolerated, said study investigator Amey Mane, MD, Sun Pharma Laboratories, Mumbai, India.

Psychosis occurs in about 50% patients with Parkinson’s disease and is a major risk factor for hospitalization, nursing home placement, and mortality.

Antipsychotics are used to treat Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but evidence for the efficacy of quetiapine is inconsistent and clozapine requires regular monitoring for agranulocytosis, said Dr. Mane. Cholinergic blockade by these drugs can also increase non-motor symptoms such as constipation, drooling, and cognitive impairment.

Pimavanserin is an oral 5-HT2A inverse agonist and antagonist and the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, he said. The drug was approved in 2016, and its label was updated in 2023 to clarify that it can be used to treat patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis, who also have dementia.

“To the best of our understanding, this is the first completed prospective study of pimavanserin with an active comparator, quetiapine,” in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, he said.

The findings were presented in a late-breaking abstract session at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS) 2024.
 

Primary Outcome at 56 Days

The assessor-blinded study enrolled 247 patients with Parkinson’s disease for at least 1 year, who were Hoehn and Yahr stage 3 or higher, with hallucinations and/or delusions on a stable dose of Parkinson’s disease medication for at least 4 weeks. The average duration of psychosis was 1.2 years.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive daily pimavanserin 34 mg or quetiapine 25-200 mg for 56 days and evaluated at baseline and days 14, 28, 42, and 56.

The mean change in Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms–Parkinson’s disease (SAPS-PD) nine-item total scores improved from baseline in both groups at all visits (P < .0001) and was significantly greater at 42 days with pimavanserin than with quetiapine (−7.15 vs −6.33; P = .029).

The primary outcome of mean change in SAPS-PD total score at day 56 was −9.64 in the pimavanserin group and −8.37 in the quetiapine group (P = .008). The between-group difference was −1.27, and the upper bound of the 95% CI (−2.77 to 0.24) was lower than the prespecified margin of 0.9, demonstrating noninferiority, Dr. Mane said.
 

Secondary Endpoints and Safety

Pimavanserin was associated with significantly greater improvement than quetiapine for the following secondary outcomes:

• SAPS-Hallucinations and Delusions at day 42 (mean, −12.70 vs −11.40; P = .009) and day 56 (mean, −17.00 vs −15.60; P = .007)
• SAPS-Hallucinations at day 42 (mean, −5.61 vs −4.75; P = .01) and day 56 (mean, −7.33 vs −6.52; P = .02)
• Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score at day 56 (−1.90 vs −1.59; P = .01)
• Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s disease (SCOPA) scores for nighttime sleep at day 14 (−1.12 vs −0.85; P = .03) and SCOPA daytime wakefulness at day 28 (−2.42 vs −1.70; P = .01)

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 7.5% and 13.5% of the pimavanserin and quetiapine groups, respectively.

Five TEAEs, all of mild intensity, were reported as related to study drugs: Pyrexia (1), headache (1), and nasopharyngitis (2) with pimavanserin and headache (1) with quetiapine, Dr. Mane said. There was one unrelated fatal stroke in the quetiapine group. No drug discontinuations occurred because of TEAEs.
 

Delayed Onset of Action?

During a discussion of the results, Hubert Fernandez, MD, director, Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, asked whether the investigators observed a difference in onset between the two drugs.

“Our general impression in the United States is that pimavanserin has a slower uptake in efficacy as compared with quetiapine. If it [quetiapine] works, it works the next day or the day after, whereas with pimavanserin you have to wait for a week or 2. I was just wondering if that’s validated or just anecdotal experience,” he said.

Dr. Mane said the study showed no difference in efficacy at 14 days and greater improvement in efficacy between days 14 and 56.

Another attendee pointed out that quetiapine is particularly good at inducing sleep and asked whether some of the observed differences, especially early on, were due to the need to rapidly titrate quetiapine to induce sleep and get the sleep-wake cycle back on track.

“We did discuss this with most of our investigators, and they gave the same reason. It’s the titration with the quetiapine, and that’s why it’s seen in the early parts,” said Dr. Mane.

Reached for comment, Regina Katzenschlager, MD, Karl Landsteiner Institute for Neuroimmunological and Neurodegenerative Disorders, Klinik Donaustadt, Vienna, Austria, said the majority of drugs commonly used for other types of psychosis cannot be used in PD because of motor worsening.

“Quetiapine is one of the very, very few options we have to treat people with Parkinson’s psychosis because it leads to little, if any, worsening and is the best tolerated,” she said. “Everything else is almost absolutely contraindicated. So that’s why an additional drug — this one has a slightly different mechanism — is incredibly helpful in the clinic because not everyone responds to quetiapine.”

Dr. Katzenschlager pointed out that pimavanserin is not approved in Europe and that the present study was conducted for regulatory purposes in India.

Dr. Mane is an employee of Sun Pharma Laboratories. Dr. Katzenschlager reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia) is noninferior to quetiapine in patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis at 56 days, results from a phase 3 trial showed.

In the first prospective comparison of the two antipsychotics in this patient population, pimavanserin yielded significant improvement across all parameters of efficacy without worsening motor symptoms and was very well tolerated, said study investigator Amey Mane, MD, Sun Pharma Laboratories, Mumbai, India.

Psychosis occurs in about 50% patients with Parkinson’s disease and is a major risk factor for hospitalization, nursing home placement, and mortality.

Antipsychotics are used to treat Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but evidence for the efficacy of quetiapine is inconsistent and clozapine requires regular monitoring for agranulocytosis, said Dr. Mane. Cholinergic blockade by these drugs can also increase non-motor symptoms such as constipation, drooling, and cognitive impairment.

Pimavanserin is an oral 5-HT2A inverse agonist and antagonist and the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, he said. The drug was approved in 2016, and its label was updated in 2023 to clarify that it can be used to treat patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis, who also have dementia.

“To the best of our understanding, this is the first completed prospective study of pimavanserin with an active comparator, quetiapine,” in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, he said.

The findings were presented in a late-breaking abstract session at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS) 2024.
 

Primary Outcome at 56 Days

The assessor-blinded study enrolled 247 patients with Parkinson’s disease for at least 1 year, who were Hoehn and Yahr stage 3 or higher, with hallucinations and/or delusions on a stable dose of Parkinson’s disease medication for at least 4 weeks. The average duration of psychosis was 1.2 years.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive daily pimavanserin 34 mg or quetiapine 25-200 mg for 56 days and evaluated at baseline and days 14, 28, 42, and 56.

The mean change in Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms–Parkinson’s disease (SAPS-PD) nine-item total scores improved from baseline in both groups at all visits (P < .0001) and was significantly greater at 42 days with pimavanserin than with quetiapine (−7.15 vs −6.33; P = .029).

The primary outcome of mean change in SAPS-PD total score at day 56 was −9.64 in the pimavanserin group and −8.37 in the quetiapine group (P = .008). The between-group difference was −1.27, and the upper bound of the 95% CI (−2.77 to 0.24) was lower than the prespecified margin of 0.9, demonstrating noninferiority, Dr. Mane said.
 

Secondary Endpoints and Safety

Pimavanserin was associated with significantly greater improvement than quetiapine for the following secondary outcomes:

• SAPS-Hallucinations and Delusions at day 42 (mean, −12.70 vs −11.40; P = .009) and day 56 (mean, −17.00 vs −15.60; P = .007)
• SAPS-Hallucinations at day 42 (mean, −5.61 vs −4.75; P = .01) and day 56 (mean, −7.33 vs −6.52; P = .02)
• Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score at day 56 (−1.90 vs −1.59; P = .01)
• Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s disease (SCOPA) scores for nighttime sleep at day 14 (−1.12 vs −0.85; P = .03) and SCOPA daytime wakefulness at day 28 (−2.42 vs −1.70; P = .01)

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 7.5% and 13.5% of the pimavanserin and quetiapine groups, respectively.

Five TEAEs, all of mild intensity, were reported as related to study drugs: Pyrexia (1), headache (1), and nasopharyngitis (2) with pimavanserin and headache (1) with quetiapine, Dr. Mane said. There was one unrelated fatal stroke in the quetiapine group. No drug discontinuations occurred because of TEAEs.
 

Delayed Onset of Action?

During a discussion of the results, Hubert Fernandez, MD, director, Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, asked whether the investigators observed a difference in onset between the two drugs.

“Our general impression in the United States is that pimavanserin has a slower uptake in efficacy as compared with quetiapine. If it [quetiapine] works, it works the next day or the day after, whereas with pimavanserin you have to wait for a week or 2. I was just wondering if that’s validated or just anecdotal experience,” he said.

Dr. Mane said the study showed no difference in efficacy at 14 days and greater improvement in efficacy between days 14 and 56.

Another attendee pointed out that quetiapine is particularly good at inducing sleep and asked whether some of the observed differences, especially early on, were due to the need to rapidly titrate quetiapine to induce sleep and get the sleep-wake cycle back on track.

“We did discuss this with most of our investigators, and they gave the same reason. It’s the titration with the quetiapine, and that’s why it’s seen in the early parts,” said Dr. Mane.

Reached for comment, Regina Katzenschlager, MD, Karl Landsteiner Institute for Neuroimmunological and Neurodegenerative Disorders, Klinik Donaustadt, Vienna, Austria, said the majority of drugs commonly used for other types of psychosis cannot be used in PD because of motor worsening.

“Quetiapine is one of the very, very few options we have to treat people with Parkinson’s psychosis because it leads to little, if any, worsening and is the best tolerated,” she said. “Everything else is almost absolutely contraindicated. So that’s why an additional drug — this one has a slightly different mechanism — is incredibly helpful in the clinic because not everyone responds to quetiapine.”

Dr. Katzenschlager pointed out that pimavanserin is not approved in Europe and that the present study was conducted for regulatory purposes in India.

Dr. Mane is an employee of Sun Pharma Laboratories. Dr. Katzenschlager reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia) is noninferior to quetiapine in patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis at 56 days, results from a phase 3 trial showed.

In the first prospective comparison of the two antipsychotics in this patient population, pimavanserin yielded significant improvement across all parameters of efficacy without worsening motor symptoms and was very well tolerated, said study investigator Amey Mane, MD, Sun Pharma Laboratories, Mumbai, India.

Psychosis occurs in about 50% patients with Parkinson’s disease and is a major risk factor for hospitalization, nursing home placement, and mortality.

Antipsychotics are used to treat Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but evidence for the efficacy of quetiapine is inconsistent and clozapine requires regular monitoring for agranulocytosis, said Dr. Mane. Cholinergic blockade by these drugs can also increase non-motor symptoms such as constipation, drooling, and cognitive impairment.

Pimavanserin is an oral 5-HT2A inverse agonist and antagonist and the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, he said. The drug was approved in 2016, and its label was updated in 2023 to clarify that it can be used to treat patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis, who also have dementia.

“To the best of our understanding, this is the first completed prospective study of pimavanserin with an active comparator, quetiapine,” in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, he said.

The findings were presented in a late-breaking abstract session at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (MDS) 2024.
 

Primary Outcome at 56 Days

The assessor-blinded study enrolled 247 patients with Parkinson’s disease for at least 1 year, who were Hoehn and Yahr stage 3 or higher, with hallucinations and/or delusions on a stable dose of Parkinson’s disease medication for at least 4 weeks. The average duration of psychosis was 1.2 years.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive daily pimavanserin 34 mg or quetiapine 25-200 mg for 56 days and evaluated at baseline and days 14, 28, 42, and 56.

The mean change in Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms–Parkinson’s disease (SAPS-PD) nine-item total scores improved from baseline in both groups at all visits (P < .0001) and was significantly greater at 42 days with pimavanserin than with quetiapine (−7.15 vs −6.33; P = .029).

The primary outcome of mean change in SAPS-PD total score at day 56 was −9.64 in the pimavanserin group and −8.37 in the quetiapine group (P = .008). The between-group difference was −1.27, and the upper bound of the 95% CI (−2.77 to 0.24) was lower than the prespecified margin of 0.9, demonstrating noninferiority, Dr. Mane said.
 

Secondary Endpoints and Safety

Pimavanserin was associated with significantly greater improvement than quetiapine for the following secondary outcomes:

• SAPS-Hallucinations and Delusions at day 42 (mean, −12.70 vs −11.40; P = .009) and day 56 (mean, −17.00 vs −15.60; P = .007)
• SAPS-Hallucinations at day 42 (mean, −5.61 vs −4.75; P = .01) and day 56 (mean, −7.33 vs −6.52; P = .02)
• Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score at day 56 (−1.90 vs −1.59; P = .01)
• Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s disease (SCOPA) scores for nighttime sleep at day 14 (−1.12 vs −0.85; P = .03) and SCOPA daytime wakefulness at day 28 (−2.42 vs −1.70; P = .01)

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 7.5% and 13.5% of the pimavanserin and quetiapine groups, respectively.

Five TEAEs, all of mild intensity, were reported as related to study drugs: Pyrexia (1), headache (1), and nasopharyngitis (2) with pimavanserin and headache (1) with quetiapine, Dr. Mane said. There was one unrelated fatal stroke in the quetiapine group. No drug discontinuations occurred because of TEAEs.
 

Delayed Onset of Action?

During a discussion of the results, Hubert Fernandez, MD, director, Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, asked whether the investigators observed a difference in onset between the two drugs.

“Our general impression in the United States is that pimavanserin has a slower uptake in efficacy as compared with quetiapine. If it [quetiapine] works, it works the next day or the day after, whereas with pimavanserin you have to wait for a week or 2. I was just wondering if that’s validated or just anecdotal experience,” he said.

Dr. Mane said the study showed no difference in efficacy at 14 days and greater improvement in efficacy between days 14 and 56.

Another attendee pointed out that quetiapine is particularly good at inducing sleep and asked whether some of the observed differences, especially early on, were due to the need to rapidly titrate quetiapine to induce sleep and get the sleep-wake cycle back on track.

“We did discuss this with most of our investigators, and they gave the same reason. It’s the titration with the quetiapine, and that’s why it’s seen in the early parts,” said Dr. Mane.

Reached for comment, Regina Katzenschlager, MD, Karl Landsteiner Institute for Neuroimmunological and Neurodegenerative Disorders, Klinik Donaustadt, Vienna, Austria, said the majority of drugs commonly used for other types of psychosis cannot be used in PD because of motor worsening.

“Quetiapine is one of the very, very few options we have to treat people with Parkinson’s psychosis because it leads to little, if any, worsening and is the best tolerated,” she said. “Everything else is almost absolutely contraindicated. So that’s why an additional drug — this one has a slightly different mechanism — is incredibly helpful in the clinic because not everyone responds to quetiapine.”

Dr. Katzenschlager pointed out that pimavanserin is not approved in Europe and that the present study was conducted for regulatory purposes in India.

Dr. Mane is an employee of Sun Pharma Laboratories. Dr. Katzenschlager reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with geriatric principles of simplified treatment regimens and personalized glycemic goals reduces hypoglycemia duration in older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) without worsening glycemic control.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of CGM use enhanced by geriatric principles in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D and at least two episodes of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < 70 mg/dL for ≥ 20 minutes over 2 weeks), who were either CGM-naive or CGM users prior to the study.
• Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group using CGM with geriatric principles (ie, adjusting goals based on overall health and simplifying regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) or a control group receiving usual care by their endocrinologist.
• The primary outcome was the change in duration of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months.
• A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed for the intervention using a healthcare sector perspective, considering the cost of CGM devices and the cost of medical staff time.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 131 participants (mean age, 71 years), of whom 68 were in the intervention group (35 CGM-naive) and 63 in the control group (23 CGM-naive).
• The intervention group showed a median reduction of 2.6% in the duration of hypoglycemia vs a 0.3% reduction in the control group (median difference, −2.3%; P < .001).
• This reduction was observed in both CGM users (median difference, −1.2%) and CGM-naive participants (median difference, −2.8%) in the intervention group.
• No significant difference in A1c levels was observed between the intervention and control groups, indicating that CGM enhanced with geriatric principles did not worsen glycemic control.
• The intervention was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,623 per quality-adjusted life-year and was cost-effective for CGM-naive participants but at a lower level owing to the high cost of the CGM device.

IN PRACTICE:

“Personalization of goals and simplification of complex regimens can be combined with CGM use to improve management of type 1 diabetes in older adults,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Medha N. Munshi, MD, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston. It was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample size and an ethnically homogeneous and highly educated cohort, which may have limited the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the study did not measure adherence to individual simplification strategies, which may have hindered the quantification of behavioral changes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors declared serving as consultants for pharmaceutical companies.

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:

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with geriatric principles of simplified treatment regimens and personalized glycemic goals reduces hypoglycemia duration in older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) without worsening glycemic control.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of CGM use enhanced by geriatric principles in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D and at least two episodes of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < 70 mg/dL for ≥ 20 minutes over 2 weeks), who were either CGM-naive or CGM users prior to the study.
• Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group using CGM with geriatric principles (ie, adjusting goals based on overall health and simplifying regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) or a control group receiving usual care by their endocrinologist.
• The primary outcome was the change in duration of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months.
• A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed for the intervention using a healthcare sector perspective, considering the cost of CGM devices and the cost of medical staff time.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 131 participants (mean age, 71 years), of whom 68 were in the intervention group (35 CGM-naive) and 63 in the control group (23 CGM-naive).
• The intervention group showed a median reduction of 2.6% in the duration of hypoglycemia vs a 0.3% reduction in the control group (median difference, −2.3%; P < .001).
• This reduction was observed in both CGM users (median difference, −1.2%) and CGM-naive participants (median difference, −2.8%) in the intervention group.
• No significant difference in A1c levels was observed between the intervention and control groups, indicating that CGM enhanced with geriatric principles did not worsen glycemic control.
• The intervention was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,623 per quality-adjusted life-year and was cost-effective for CGM-naive participants but at a lower level owing to the high cost of the CGM device.

IN PRACTICE:

“Personalization of goals and simplification of complex regimens can be combined with CGM use to improve management of type 1 diabetes in older adults,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Medha N. Munshi, MD, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston. It was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample size and an ethnically homogeneous and highly educated cohort, which may have limited the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the study did not measure adherence to individual simplification strategies, which may have hindered the quantification of behavioral changes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors declared serving as consultants for pharmaceutical companies.

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:

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with geriatric principles of simplified treatment regimens and personalized glycemic goals reduces hypoglycemia duration in older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) without worsening glycemic control.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the effectiveness of CGM use enhanced by geriatric principles in adults aged ≥ 65 years with T1D and at least two episodes of hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < 70 mg/dL for ≥ 20 minutes over 2 weeks), who were either CGM-naive or CGM users prior to the study.
• Participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group using CGM with geriatric principles (ie, adjusting goals based on overall health and simplifying regimens based on CGM patterns and clinical characteristics) or a control group receiving usual care by their endocrinologist.
• The primary outcome was the change in duration of hypoglycemia from baseline to 6 months.
• A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed for the intervention using a healthcare sector perspective, considering the cost of CGM devices and the cost of medical staff time.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 131 participants (mean age, 71 years), of whom 68 were in the intervention group (35 CGM-naive) and 63 in the control group (23 CGM-naive).
• The intervention group showed a median reduction of 2.6% in the duration of hypoglycemia vs a 0.3% reduction in the control group (median difference, −2.3%; P < .001).
• This reduction was observed in both CGM users (median difference, −1.2%) and CGM-naive participants (median difference, −2.8%) in the intervention group.
• No significant difference in A1c levels was observed between the intervention and control groups, indicating that CGM enhanced with geriatric principles did not worsen glycemic control.
• The intervention was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,623 per quality-adjusted life-year and was cost-effective for CGM-naive participants but at a lower level owing to the high cost of the CGM device.

IN PRACTICE:

“Personalization of goals and simplification of complex regimens can be combined with CGM use to improve management of type 1 diabetes in older adults,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Medha N. Munshi, MD, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston. It was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample size and an ethnically homogeneous and highly educated cohort, which may have limited the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the study did not measure adherence to individual simplification strategies, which may have hindered the quantification of behavioral changes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Two authors declared serving as consultants for pharmaceutical companies.

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.

Over the past few years, many states have attempted to address the ongoing shortage of healthcare workers by introducing new bills to increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The goal of each bill was to improve access to care, particularly for patients who may live in areas where it’s difficult to find a doctor.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a targeted campaign to fight “scope creep.” Their goal was to gain the momentum necessary to block proposed legislation to modify or expand the practice authority of nonphysicians, including PAs. A spokesperson for the organization told this news organization that the AMA “greatly values and respects the contributions of PAs as important members of the healthcare team” but emphasized that they do not have the same “skill set or breadth of experience of physicians.”

As such, the AMA argued that expanded practice authority would not only dismantle physician-led care teams but also ultimately lead to higher costs and lower-quality patient care.

The AMA has since launched a large-scale advocacy effort to fight practice expansion legislation — and has a specific page on its website to highlight those efforts. In addition, they have authored model legislation, talking points for AMA members, and a widely read article in AMA News to help them in what they call a “fight for physicians.”

These resources have also been disseminated to the greater healthcare stakeholder community.

Marilyn Suri, PA-C, chief operating officer and senior executive for Advanced Practice Professional Affairs at Vincenzo Novara MDPA and Associates, a critical care pulmonary medicine practice in Miami, Florida, said she found the AMA’s campaign to be “very misleading.”

“PAs are created in the image of physicians to help manage the physician shortage. We are trained very rigorously — to diagnose illness, develop treatment plans, and prescribe medications,” she said. “We’re not trying to expand our scope. We are trying to eliminate or lessen barriers that prevent patients from getting access to care.”

Suri is not alone. Last summer, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) requested a meeting with the AMA to find ways for the two organizations to collaborate to improve care delivery — as well as find common ground to address issues regarding patient access to care. When the AMA did not respond, the AAPA sent a second letter in September 2024, reiterating their request for a meeting.

That correspondence also included a letter, signed by more than 8000 PAs from across the country, calling for an end to what the AAPA refers to as “damaging rhetoric,” as well as data from a recent survey of PAs regarding the fallout of AMA’s scope creep messaging.

Those survey results highlighted that the vast majority of PAs surveyed feel that the AMA is doing more than just attacking proposed legislation: They believe the association is negatively influencing patients’ understanding of PA qualifications, ultimately affecting their ability to provide care.

“The campaign is unintentionally harming patients by suggesting we are doing more than what we are trained to do,” said Elisa Hock, PA-C, a behavioral health PA in Texas. “And when you work in a place with limited resources, medically speaking — including limited access to providers — this kind of campaign is really detrimental to helping patients.”

Lisa M. Gables, CEO of the AAPA, said the organization is “deeply disappointed” in the AMA’s lack of response to their letters thus far — but remains committed to working with the organization to bring forward new solutions to address healthcare’s most pressing challenges.

“AAPA remains committed to pushing for modernization of practice laws to ensure all providers can practice medicine to the fullest extent of their training, education, and experience,” she said. “That is what patients deserve and want.”

Hock agreed. She told this news organization that the public is not always aware of what PAs can offer in terms of patient care. That said, she believes newer generations of physicians understand the value of PAs and the many skills they bring to the table.

“I’ve been doing this for 17 years, and it’s been an uphill battle, at times, to educate the public about what PAs can and can’t do,” she explained. “To throw more mud in the mix that will confuse patients more about what we do doesn’t help. Healthcare works best with a team-based approach. And that team has been and always will be led by the physician. We are aware of our role and our limitations. But we also know what we can offer patients, especially in areas like El Paso, where there is a real shortage of providers.”

With a growing aging population — and the physician shortage expected to increase in the coming decade — Suri hopes that the AMA will accept AAPA’s invitation to meet — because no one wins with this kind of healthcare infighting. In fact, she said patients will suffer because of it. She hopes that future discussions and collaborations can show providers and patients what team-based healthcare can offer.

“I think it’s important for those in healthcare to be aware that none of us work alone. Even physicians collaborate with other subspecialties, as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals,” said Suri. “[Physicians and PAs] need to take a collaborative approach. We need each other. PAs are not physicians. But, just like physicians, we are considered safe and trusted care providers because of our education and training. And we can increase access to care for patients tomorrow if we start working together.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few years, many states have attempted to address the ongoing shortage of healthcare workers by introducing new bills to increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The goal of each bill was to improve access to care, particularly for patients who may live in areas where it’s difficult to find a doctor.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a targeted campaign to fight “scope creep.” Their goal was to gain the momentum necessary to block proposed legislation to modify or expand the practice authority of nonphysicians, including PAs. A spokesperson for the organization told this news organization that the AMA “greatly values and respects the contributions of PAs as important members of the healthcare team” but emphasized that they do not have the same “skill set or breadth of experience of physicians.”

As such, the AMA argued that expanded practice authority would not only dismantle physician-led care teams but also ultimately lead to higher costs and lower-quality patient care.

The AMA has since launched a large-scale advocacy effort to fight practice expansion legislation — and has a specific page on its website to highlight those efforts. In addition, they have authored model legislation, talking points for AMA members, and a widely read article in AMA News to help them in what they call a “fight for physicians.”

These resources have also been disseminated to the greater healthcare stakeholder community.

Marilyn Suri, PA-C, chief operating officer and senior executive for Advanced Practice Professional Affairs at Vincenzo Novara MDPA and Associates, a critical care pulmonary medicine practice in Miami, Florida, said she found the AMA’s campaign to be “very misleading.”

“PAs are created in the image of physicians to help manage the physician shortage. We are trained very rigorously — to diagnose illness, develop treatment plans, and prescribe medications,” she said. “We’re not trying to expand our scope. We are trying to eliminate or lessen barriers that prevent patients from getting access to care.”

Suri is not alone. Last summer, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) requested a meeting with the AMA to find ways for the two organizations to collaborate to improve care delivery — as well as find common ground to address issues regarding patient access to care. When the AMA did not respond, the AAPA sent a second letter in September 2024, reiterating their request for a meeting.

That correspondence also included a letter, signed by more than 8000 PAs from across the country, calling for an end to what the AAPA refers to as “damaging rhetoric,” as well as data from a recent survey of PAs regarding the fallout of AMA’s scope creep messaging.

Those survey results highlighted that the vast majority of PAs surveyed feel that the AMA is doing more than just attacking proposed legislation: They believe the association is negatively influencing patients’ understanding of PA qualifications, ultimately affecting their ability to provide care.

“The campaign is unintentionally harming patients by suggesting we are doing more than what we are trained to do,” said Elisa Hock, PA-C, a behavioral health PA in Texas. “And when you work in a place with limited resources, medically speaking — including limited access to providers — this kind of campaign is really detrimental to helping patients.”

Lisa M. Gables, CEO of the AAPA, said the organization is “deeply disappointed” in the AMA’s lack of response to their letters thus far — but remains committed to working with the organization to bring forward new solutions to address healthcare’s most pressing challenges.

“AAPA remains committed to pushing for modernization of practice laws to ensure all providers can practice medicine to the fullest extent of their training, education, and experience,” she said. “That is what patients deserve and want.”

Hock agreed. She told this news organization that the public is not always aware of what PAs can offer in terms of patient care. That said, she believes newer generations of physicians understand the value of PAs and the many skills they bring to the table.

“I’ve been doing this for 17 years, and it’s been an uphill battle, at times, to educate the public about what PAs can and can’t do,” she explained. “To throw more mud in the mix that will confuse patients more about what we do doesn’t help. Healthcare works best with a team-based approach. And that team has been and always will be led by the physician. We are aware of our role and our limitations. But we also know what we can offer patients, especially in areas like El Paso, where there is a real shortage of providers.”

With a growing aging population — and the physician shortage expected to increase in the coming decade — Suri hopes that the AMA will accept AAPA’s invitation to meet — because no one wins with this kind of healthcare infighting. In fact, she said patients will suffer because of it. She hopes that future discussions and collaborations can show providers and patients what team-based healthcare can offer.

“I think it’s important for those in healthcare to be aware that none of us work alone. Even physicians collaborate with other subspecialties, as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals,” said Suri. “[Physicians and PAs] need to take a collaborative approach. We need each other. PAs are not physicians. But, just like physicians, we are considered safe and trusted care providers because of our education and training. And we can increase access to care for patients tomorrow if we start working together.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few years, many states have attempted to address the ongoing shortage of healthcare workers by introducing new bills to increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The goal of each bill was to improve access to care, particularly for patients who may live in areas where it’s difficult to find a doctor.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a targeted campaign to fight “scope creep.” Their goal was to gain the momentum necessary to block proposed legislation to modify or expand the practice authority of nonphysicians, including PAs. A spokesperson for the organization told this news organization that the AMA “greatly values and respects the contributions of PAs as important members of the healthcare team” but emphasized that they do not have the same “skill set or breadth of experience of physicians.”

As such, the AMA argued that expanded practice authority would not only dismantle physician-led care teams but also ultimately lead to higher costs and lower-quality patient care.

The AMA has since launched a large-scale advocacy effort to fight practice expansion legislation — and has a specific page on its website to highlight those efforts. In addition, they have authored model legislation, talking points for AMA members, and a widely read article in AMA News to help them in what they call a “fight for physicians.”

These resources have also been disseminated to the greater healthcare stakeholder community.

Marilyn Suri, PA-C, chief operating officer and senior executive for Advanced Practice Professional Affairs at Vincenzo Novara MDPA and Associates, a critical care pulmonary medicine practice in Miami, Florida, said she found the AMA’s campaign to be “very misleading.”

“PAs are created in the image of physicians to help manage the physician shortage. We are trained very rigorously — to diagnose illness, develop treatment plans, and prescribe medications,” she said. “We’re not trying to expand our scope. We are trying to eliminate or lessen barriers that prevent patients from getting access to care.”

Suri is not alone. Last summer, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) requested a meeting with the AMA to find ways for the two organizations to collaborate to improve care delivery — as well as find common ground to address issues regarding patient access to care. When the AMA did not respond, the AAPA sent a second letter in September 2024, reiterating their request for a meeting.

That correspondence also included a letter, signed by more than 8000 PAs from across the country, calling for an end to what the AAPA refers to as “damaging rhetoric,” as well as data from a recent survey of PAs regarding the fallout of AMA’s scope creep messaging.

Those survey results highlighted that the vast majority of PAs surveyed feel that the AMA is doing more than just attacking proposed legislation: They believe the association is negatively influencing patients’ understanding of PA qualifications, ultimately affecting their ability to provide care.

“The campaign is unintentionally harming patients by suggesting we are doing more than what we are trained to do,” said Elisa Hock, PA-C, a behavioral health PA in Texas. “And when you work in a place with limited resources, medically speaking — including limited access to providers — this kind of campaign is really detrimental to helping patients.”

Lisa M. Gables, CEO of the AAPA, said the organization is “deeply disappointed” in the AMA’s lack of response to their letters thus far — but remains committed to working with the organization to bring forward new solutions to address healthcare’s most pressing challenges.

“AAPA remains committed to pushing for modernization of practice laws to ensure all providers can practice medicine to the fullest extent of their training, education, and experience,” she said. “That is what patients deserve and want.”

Hock agreed. She told this news organization that the public is not always aware of what PAs can offer in terms of patient care. That said, she believes newer generations of physicians understand the value of PAs and the many skills they bring to the table.

“I’ve been doing this for 17 years, and it’s been an uphill battle, at times, to educate the public about what PAs can and can’t do,” she explained. “To throw more mud in the mix that will confuse patients more about what we do doesn’t help. Healthcare works best with a team-based approach. And that team has been and always will be led by the physician. We are aware of our role and our limitations. But we also know what we can offer patients, especially in areas like El Paso, where there is a real shortage of providers.”

With a growing aging population — and the physician shortage expected to increase in the coming decade — Suri hopes that the AMA will accept AAPA’s invitation to meet — because no one wins with this kind of healthcare infighting. In fact, she said patients will suffer because of it. She hopes that future discussions and collaborations can show providers and patients what team-based healthcare can offer.

“I think it’s important for those in healthcare to be aware that none of us work alone. Even physicians collaborate with other subspecialties, as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals,” said Suri. “[Physicians and PAs] need to take a collaborative approach. We need each other. PAs are not physicians. But, just like physicians, we are considered safe and trusted care providers because of our education and training. And we can increase access to care for patients tomorrow if we start working together.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan is safe and effective for patients with heartburn from nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), according to investigators.

Benefits of vonoprazan were seen as soon as the first day of treatment and persisted through the 20-week extension period, lead author Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues reported.

Yale School of Medicine

“A potential alternative to PPI therapy is a potassium-competitive acid blocker, a new class of antisecretory agents that provide more potent inhibition of gastric acid secretion than PPIs,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

While a small observational study found that 18 out of 26 patients (69%) with PPI-resistant NERD had improved symptoms with vonoprazan, subsequent randomized trials in Japan failed to meet their primary endpoints, Laine and colleagues noted. The present randomized trial was therefore conducted to determine how vonoprazan might help a US patient population.

The study involved 772 patients who reported heartburn at least 4 days per week during screening, but without erosive esophagitis on endoscopy. Participants were randomized into three groups: placebo, vonoprazan 10 mg, or vonoprazan 20 mg. These protocols were administered for 4 weeks, followed by a 20-week extension, in which placebo patients were rerandomized to receive one of the two vonoprazan dose levels.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of days without daytime or nighttime heartburn (24-hour heartburn-free days) during the initial 4-week treatment period. The secondary endpoint, assessed during the same timeframe, was percentage of days without need for a rescue antacid.

In the 4-week placebo-controlled period, patients treated with vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg showed a significant improvement in heartburn-free days, compared with placebo. The percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days was 27.7% in the placebo group vs 44.8% in the 10-mg vonoprazan group (least squares mean difference 17.1%; P < .0001) and 44.4% in the 20 mg vonoprazan group (least squares mean difference 16.7%; P < .0001).

Benefits of vonoprazan were seen as early as the first day of treatment, with 8.3% and 11.6% more patients in the 10-mg and 20-mg groups, respectively, experiencing a heartburn-free day, compared with placebo. By day 2, these differences increased to 18.1% and 23.2%, respectively.

The percentage of days without rescue antacid use was also significantly higher in both vonoprazan groups. Patients in the 10 mg and 20 mg groups had 63.3% and 61.2% of days without antacid use, respectively, compared with 47.6% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

These benefits persisted throughout the 20-week extension period, with similar percentages of heartburn-free days across all groups. Mean percentages of 24-hour heartburn-free days ranged from 61% to 63% in the extension phase, while median percentages spanned 76%-79%.

Adverse events were infrequent and comparable across all groups. The most common adverse event was nausea, occurring slightly more frequently in the vonoprazan groups (2.3% in the 10-mg group and 3.1% in the 20-mg group) vs placebo (0.4%). Serious adverse events were rare and were deemed unrelated to treatment. No new safety signals were identified during the 20-week extension period. Increases in serum gastrin levels, a marker of acid suppression, returned to near baseline after discontinuation of vonoprazan.

“In conclusion, the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with NERD, with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy,” Laine and colleagues wrote.

In July 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved vonoprazan for treating heartburn in patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.This study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Carnot, and others.

Potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan is safe and effective for patients with heartburn from nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), according to investigators.

Benefits of vonoprazan were seen as soon as the first day of treatment and persisted through the 20-week extension period, lead author Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues reported.

Yale School of Medicine

“A potential alternative to PPI therapy is a potassium-competitive acid blocker, a new class of antisecretory agents that provide more potent inhibition of gastric acid secretion than PPIs,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

While a small observational study found that 18 out of 26 patients (69%) with PPI-resistant NERD had improved symptoms with vonoprazan, subsequent randomized trials in Japan failed to meet their primary endpoints, Laine and colleagues noted. The present randomized trial was therefore conducted to determine how vonoprazan might help a US patient population.

The study involved 772 patients who reported heartburn at least 4 days per week during screening, but without erosive esophagitis on endoscopy. Participants were randomized into three groups: placebo, vonoprazan 10 mg, or vonoprazan 20 mg. These protocols were administered for 4 weeks, followed by a 20-week extension, in which placebo patients were rerandomized to receive one of the two vonoprazan dose levels.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of days without daytime or nighttime heartburn (24-hour heartburn-free days) during the initial 4-week treatment period. The secondary endpoint, assessed during the same timeframe, was percentage of days without need for a rescue antacid.

In the 4-week placebo-controlled period, patients treated with vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg showed a significant improvement in heartburn-free days, compared with placebo. The percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days was 27.7% in the placebo group vs 44.8% in the 10-mg vonoprazan group (least squares mean difference 17.1%; P < .0001) and 44.4% in the 20 mg vonoprazan group (least squares mean difference 16.7%; P < .0001).

Benefits of vonoprazan were seen as early as the first day of treatment, with 8.3% and 11.6% more patients in the 10-mg and 20-mg groups, respectively, experiencing a heartburn-free day, compared with placebo. By day 2, these differences increased to 18.1% and 23.2%, respectively.

The percentage of days without rescue antacid use was also significantly higher in both vonoprazan groups. Patients in the 10 mg and 20 mg groups had 63.3% and 61.2% of days without antacid use, respectively, compared with 47.6% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

These benefits persisted throughout the 20-week extension period, with similar percentages of heartburn-free days across all groups. Mean percentages of 24-hour heartburn-free days ranged from 61% to 63% in the extension phase, while median percentages spanned 76%-79%.

Adverse events were infrequent and comparable across all groups. The most common adverse event was nausea, occurring slightly more frequently in the vonoprazan groups (2.3% in the 10-mg group and 3.1% in the 20-mg group) vs placebo (0.4%). Serious adverse events were rare and were deemed unrelated to treatment. No new safety signals were identified during the 20-week extension period. Increases in serum gastrin levels, a marker of acid suppression, returned to near baseline after discontinuation of vonoprazan.

“In conclusion, the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with NERD, with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy,” Laine and colleagues wrote.

In July 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved vonoprazan for treating heartburn in patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.This study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Carnot, and others.

Potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan is safe and effective for patients with heartburn from nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), according to investigators.

Benefits of vonoprazan were seen as soon as the first day of treatment and persisted through the 20-week extension period, lead author Loren Laine, MD, AGAF, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues reported.

Yale School of Medicine

“A potential alternative to PPI therapy is a potassium-competitive acid blocker, a new class of antisecretory agents that provide more potent inhibition of gastric acid secretion than PPIs,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

While a small observational study found that 18 out of 26 patients (69%) with PPI-resistant NERD had improved symptoms with vonoprazan, subsequent randomized trials in Japan failed to meet their primary endpoints, Laine and colleagues noted. The present randomized trial was therefore conducted to determine how vonoprazan might help a US patient population.

The study involved 772 patients who reported heartburn at least 4 days per week during screening, but without erosive esophagitis on endoscopy. Participants were randomized into three groups: placebo, vonoprazan 10 mg, or vonoprazan 20 mg. These protocols were administered for 4 weeks, followed by a 20-week extension, in which placebo patients were rerandomized to receive one of the two vonoprazan dose levels.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of days without daytime or nighttime heartburn (24-hour heartburn-free days) during the initial 4-week treatment period. The secondary endpoint, assessed during the same timeframe, was percentage of days without need for a rescue antacid.

In the 4-week placebo-controlled period, patients treated with vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg showed a significant improvement in heartburn-free days, compared with placebo. The percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days was 27.7% in the placebo group vs 44.8% in the 10-mg vonoprazan group (least squares mean difference 17.1%; P < .0001) and 44.4% in the 20 mg vonoprazan group (least squares mean difference 16.7%; P < .0001).

Benefits of vonoprazan were seen as early as the first day of treatment, with 8.3% and 11.6% more patients in the 10-mg and 20-mg groups, respectively, experiencing a heartburn-free day, compared with placebo. By day 2, these differences increased to 18.1% and 23.2%, respectively.

The percentage of days without rescue antacid use was also significantly higher in both vonoprazan groups. Patients in the 10 mg and 20 mg groups had 63.3% and 61.2% of days without antacid use, respectively, compared with 47.6% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both comparisons).

These benefits persisted throughout the 20-week extension period, with similar percentages of heartburn-free days across all groups. Mean percentages of 24-hour heartburn-free days ranged from 61% to 63% in the extension phase, while median percentages spanned 76%-79%.

Adverse events were infrequent and comparable across all groups. The most common adverse event was nausea, occurring slightly more frequently in the vonoprazan groups (2.3% in the 10-mg group and 3.1% in the 20-mg group) vs placebo (0.4%). Serious adverse events were rare and were deemed unrelated to treatment. No new safety signals were identified during the 20-week extension period. Increases in serum gastrin levels, a marker of acid suppression, returned to near baseline after discontinuation of vonoprazan.

“In conclusion, the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with NERD, with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy,” Laine and colleagues wrote.

In July 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved vonoprazan for treating heartburn in patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease.This study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Carnot, and others.

Semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) is associated with a significantly lower risk for overdose in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), new research shows.

The findings suggest that the drug may be a promising treatment option for OUD, adding to the growing evidence of the potential psychiatric benefits of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) inhibitors.

“Our study provided real-world evidence suggesting that semaglutide could have benefits in preventing opioid overdose and treating opioid use disorder,” co–lead author Rong Xu, PhD, director of the Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

However, Xu cautioned that this evidence is preliminary and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

The study published online in a research letter on September 25 in JAMA Network Open.
 

New Addiction Meds an Urgent Priority

Investigators analyzed electronic medical records from 33,006 patients with type 2 diabetes and OUD who were prescribed one of eight antidiabetic medications between 2017 and 2023. 

Drugs included in the study were semaglutide, insulin, metformin, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Participants in the semaglutide and each comparison group were matched for certain covariates at baseline, such as socioeconomic status and OUD medications. 

After 1 year, semaglutide was associated with a 42%-68% lower risk for opioid overdose than other antidiabetic medications, including other GLP-1s (range of hazard ratio [HR]: HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.89; to HR, 0.58; 95%CI, 0.38-0.87). 

Xu noted a number of study limitations including the effect of possible confounders and sole reliance on prescription data.

However, the findings are in line with those of prior studies showing that semaglutide may be associated with lower rates of alcohol and nicotine use, she said. 

Earlier this year, Xu, along with National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow, MD, and colleagues, published a retrospective cohort study of nearly 84,000 patients with obesity. That analysis showed that semaglutide was associated with a significantly lower risk of new alcohol use disorder diagnoses. 

In a previous editorial by Xu and Volkow that summarized the research to-date on GLP-1s for nicotine, alcohol, and substance use disorders, they note that “closing the addiction treatment gap and discovering new, more effective addiction medications are urgent priorities. In this regard, investigating the potential of GLP-1 analogue medications to treat substance use disorder deserves fast and rigorous testing.”
 

Caution Warranted

Commenting on the study, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford in England, said at this point, “we have to be very careful about how we interpret these data.” 

In August, De Giorgi published a study showing that semaglutide was associated with reduced risk for several neurologic and psychiatric outcomes including dementia and nicotine misuse. 

While there is enough observational evidence linking GLP-1 medications with reduced SUD risk, he noted that “now is the time to move on and conduct some randomized clinical trials, specifically testing our hypothesis in people who have psychiatric disorders.”

De Giorgi also called for mechanistic studies of semaglutide and other so that researchers could learn more about how it works to reduce cravings. “Instead of going from bench to bed, we need to go back to the bench,” he said.

As previously reported, De Giorgi recently called on experts in the field to actively explore the potential of GLP-1 inhibitors for mental illness. 

The study was funded by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health. Xu reported no relevant financial relationships. De Giorgi reported receiving funding from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

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

Semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) is associated with a significantly lower risk for overdose in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), new research shows.

The findings suggest that the drug may be a promising treatment option for OUD, adding to the growing evidence of the potential psychiatric benefits of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) inhibitors.

“Our study provided real-world evidence suggesting that semaglutide could have benefits in preventing opioid overdose and treating opioid use disorder,” co–lead author Rong Xu, PhD, director of the Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

However, Xu cautioned that this evidence is preliminary and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

The study published online in a research letter on September 25 in JAMA Network Open.
 

New Addiction Meds an Urgent Priority

Investigators analyzed electronic medical records from 33,006 patients with type 2 diabetes and OUD who were prescribed one of eight antidiabetic medications between 2017 and 2023. 

Drugs included in the study were semaglutide, insulin, metformin, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Participants in the semaglutide and each comparison group were matched for certain covariates at baseline, such as socioeconomic status and OUD medications. 

After 1 year, semaglutide was associated with a 42%-68% lower risk for opioid overdose than other antidiabetic medications, including other GLP-1s (range of hazard ratio [HR]: HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.89; to HR, 0.58; 95%CI, 0.38-0.87). 

Xu noted a number of study limitations including the effect of possible confounders and sole reliance on prescription data.

However, the findings are in line with those of prior studies showing that semaglutide may be associated with lower rates of alcohol and nicotine use, she said. 

Earlier this year, Xu, along with National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow, MD, and colleagues, published a retrospective cohort study of nearly 84,000 patients with obesity. That analysis showed that semaglutide was associated with a significantly lower risk of new alcohol use disorder diagnoses. 

In a previous editorial by Xu and Volkow that summarized the research to-date on GLP-1s for nicotine, alcohol, and substance use disorders, they note that “closing the addiction treatment gap and discovering new, more effective addiction medications are urgent priorities. In this regard, investigating the potential of GLP-1 analogue medications to treat substance use disorder deserves fast and rigorous testing.”
 

Caution Warranted

Commenting on the study, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford in England, said at this point, “we have to be very careful about how we interpret these data.” 

In August, De Giorgi published a study showing that semaglutide was associated with reduced risk for several neurologic and psychiatric outcomes including dementia and nicotine misuse. 

While there is enough observational evidence linking GLP-1 medications with reduced SUD risk, he noted that “now is the time to move on and conduct some randomized clinical trials, specifically testing our hypothesis in people who have psychiatric disorders.”

De Giorgi also called for mechanistic studies of semaglutide and other so that researchers could learn more about how it works to reduce cravings. “Instead of going from bench to bed, we need to go back to the bench,” he said.

As previously reported, De Giorgi recently called on experts in the field to actively explore the potential of GLP-1 inhibitors for mental illness. 

The study was funded by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health. Xu reported no relevant financial relationships. De Giorgi reported receiving funding from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

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

Semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) is associated with a significantly lower risk for overdose in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), new research shows.

The findings suggest that the drug may be a promising treatment option for OUD, adding to the growing evidence of the potential psychiatric benefits of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) inhibitors.

“Our study provided real-world evidence suggesting that semaglutide could have benefits in preventing opioid overdose and treating opioid use disorder,” co–lead author Rong Xu, PhD, director of the Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.

However, Xu cautioned that this evidence is preliminary and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

The study published online in a research letter on September 25 in JAMA Network Open.
 

New Addiction Meds an Urgent Priority

Investigators analyzed electronic medical records from 33,006 patients with type 2 diabetes and OUD who were prescribed one of eight antidiabetic medications between 2017 and 2023. 

Drugs included in the study were semaglutide, insulin, metformin, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Participants in the semaglutide and each comparison group were matched for certain covariates at baseline, such as socioeconomic status and OUD medications. 

After 1 year, semaglutide was associated with a 42%-68% lower risk for opioid overdose than other antidiabetic medications, including other GLP-1s (range of hazard ratio [HR]: HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.89; to HR, 0.58; 95%CI, 0.38-0.87). 

Xu noted a number of study limitations including the effect of possible confounders and sole reliance on prescription data.

However, the findings are in line with those of prior studies showing that semaglutide may be associated with lower rates of alcohol and nicotine use, she said. 

Earlier this year, Xu, along with National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow, MD, and colleagues, published a retrospective cohort study of nearly 84,000 patients with obesity. That analysis showed that semaglutide was associated with a significantly lower risk of new alcohol use disorder diagnoses. 

In a previous editorial by Xu and Volkow that summarized the research to-date on GLP-1s for nicotine, alcohol, and substance use disorders, they note that “closing the addiction treatment gap and discovering new, more effective addiction medications are urgent priorities. In this regard, investigating the potential of GLP-1 analogue medications to treat substance use disorder deserves fast and rigorous testing.”
 

Caution Warranted

Commenting on the study, Riccardo De Giorgi, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford in England, said at this point, “we have to be very careful about how we interpret these data.” 

In August, De Giorgi published a study showing that semaglutide was associated with reduced risk for several neurologic and psychiatric outcomes including dementia and nicotine misuse. 

While there is enough observational evidence linking GLP-1 medications with reduced SUD risk, he noted that “now is the time to move on and conduct some randomized clinical trials, specifically testing our hypothesis in people who have psychiatric disorders.”

De Giorgi also called for mechanistic studies of semaglutide and other so that researchers could learn more about how it works to reduce cravings. “Instead of going from bench to bed, we need to go back to the bench,” he said.

As previously reported, De Giorgi recently called on experts in the field to actively explore the potential of GLP-1 inhibitors for mental illness. 

The study was funded by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health. Xu reported no relevant financial relationships. De Giorgi reported receiving funding from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

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

It’s critical to bring the voice of gastroenterology to Capitol Hill to make a real difference in legislation that affects patient care. That’s why we gathered our leaders from across the United States in Washington, DC, to meet with congressional offices during our annual Advocacy Day.

GIs from California to Massachusetts and many states in between met with House and Senate offices to educate members of Congress and their staff about the most critical policy issues impacting you and your patients. In total, 28 states were represented and we attended more than 100 meetings in 64 different districts, which was a mix of both Republican and Democratic offices.

University of Miami

For the second year in a row, we were fortunate to be joined by GI patient advocates as well, who shared personal stories about the challenges they encountered in the health care system, and the negative effects to their well-being and quality of life because of red tape caused by prior authorization and step therapy.

The in-person advocacy of our members and patient advocates makes a difference. In one of AGA President Dr. Maria Abreu’s meetings, the congressional staffer remembered that he met with her, Dr. Mel Wilcox, and a patient advocate during 2023’s Advocacy Day and recounted the impact of their conversation about delays to timely access to care for inflammatory bowel disease medication.

Numerous GIs had similar experiences on Advocacy Day and recounted the benefits of being able to walk into House and Senate offices and educate congressional staff on the issues they’re experiencing in their clinic or lab.

Being able to start these conversations about health care and GI and build these relationships showcases the value of Advocacy Day, and demonstrates how AGA works with members to make it easy to advocate for the issues important to them. We were able to have a full day of constructive meetings with lawmakers and their staff thanks to members and patient advocates. Thank you for being engaged and using your voices to protect GI patient care!






 

It’s critical to bring the voice of gastroenterology to Capitol Hill to make a real difference in legislation that affects patient care. That’s why we gathered our leaders from across the United States in Washington, DC, to meet with congressional offices during our annual Advocacy Day.

GIs from California to Massachusetts and many states in between met with House and Senate offices to educate members of Congress and their staff about the most critical policy issues impacting you and your patients. In total, 28 states were represented and we attended more than 100 meetings in 64 different districts, which was a mix of both Republican and Democratic offices.

University of Miami

For the second year in a row, we were fortunate to be joined by GI patient advocates as well, who shared personal stories about the challenges they encountered in the health care system, and the negative effects to their well-being and quality of life because of red tape caused by prior authorization and step therapy.

The in-person advocacy of our members and patient advocates makes a difference. In one of AGA President Dr. Maria Abreu’s meetings, the congressional staffer remembered that he met with her, Dr. Mel Wilcox, and a patient advocate during 2023’s Advocacy Day and recounted the impact of their conversation about delays to timely access to care for inflammatory bowel disease medication.

Numerous GIs had similar experiences on Advocacy Day and recounted the benefits of being able to walk into House and Senate offices and educate congressional staff on the issues they’re experiencing in their clinic or lab.

Being able to start these conversations about health care and GI and build these relationships showcases the value of Advocacy Day, and demonstrates how AGA works with members to make it easy to advocate for the issues important to them. We were able to have a full day of constructive meetings with lawmakers and their staff thanks to members and patient advocates. Thank you for being engaged and using your voices to protect GI patient care!






 

It’s critical to bring the voice of gastroenterology to Capitol Hill to make a real difference in legislation that affects patient care. That’s why we gathered our leaders from across the United States in Washington, DC, to meet with congressional offices during our annual Advocacy Day.

GIs from California to Massachusetts and many states in between met with House and Senate offices to educate members of Congress and their staff about the most critical policy issues impacting you and your patients. In total, 28 states were represented and we attended more than 100 meetings in 64 different districts, which was a mix of both Republican and Democratic offices.

University of Miami

For the second year in a row, we were fortunate to be joined by GI patient advocates as well, who shared personal stories about the challenges they encountered in the health care system, and the negative effects to their well-being and quality of life because of red tape caused by prior authorization and step therapy.

The in-person advocacy of our members and patient advocates makes a difference. In one of AGA President Dr. Maria Abreu’s meetings, the congressional staffer remembered that he met with her, Dr. Mel Wilcox, and a patient advocate during 2023’s Advocacy Day and recounted the impact of their conversation about delays to timely access to care for inflammatory bowel disease medication.

Numerous GIs had similar experiences on Advocacy Day and recounted the benefits of being able to walk into House and Senate offices and educate congressional staff on the issues they’re experiencing in their clinic or lab.

Being able to start these conversations about health care and GI and build these relationships showcases the value of Advocacy Day, and demonstrates how AGA works with members to make it easy to advocate for the issues important to them. We were able to have a full day of constructive meetings with lawmakers and their staff thanks to members and patient advocates. Thank you for being engaged and using your voices to protect GI patient care!






 

What will the practice of gastroenterology look like in 20 years? It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

How will we get there? New treatments and devices are the result of years of research.

To help make this dream a reality, AGA — through the AGA Research Foundation — has made a commitment to support investigators in GI and hepatology with its Research Awards Program.

With the help of AGA members, like you, the AGA Research Foundation can provide research funding to highly qualified investigators. These diverse researchers range from young investigators to more seasoned leaders in GI, all embarking on novel research projects that will advance our understanding of digestive conditions and pave the way for future discoveries in the field.

To our AGA Research Foundation donors, we sincerely thank you for your gifts.

We invite the GI community to join others in supporting and helping spark the scientific breakthroughs of today so clinicians will have the tools to improve care tomorrow.

Make your tax-deductible gift today at www.gastro.org/donateonline.






 

What will the practice of gastroenterology look like in 20 years? It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

How will we get there? New treatments and devices are the result of years of research.

To help make this dream a reality, AGA — through the AGA Research Foundation — has made a commitment to support investigators in GI and hepatology with its Research Awards Program.

With the help of AGA members, like you, the AGA Research Foundation can provide research funding to highly qualified investigators. These diverse researchers range from young investigators to more seasoned leaders in GI, all embarking on novel research projects that will advance our understanding of digestive conditions and pave the way for future discoveries in the field.

To our AGA Research Foundation donors, we sincerely thank you for your gifts.

We invite the GI community to join others in supporting and helping spark the scientific breakthroughs of today so clinicians will have the tools to improve care tomorrow.

Make your tax-deductible gift today at www.gastro.org/donateonline.






 

What will the practice of gastroenterology look like in 20 years? It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

How will we get there? New treatments and devices are the result of years of research.

To help make this dream a reality, AGA — through the AGA Research Foundation — has made a commitment to support investigators in GI and hepatology with its Research Awards Program.

With the help of AGA members, like you, the AGA Research Foundation can provide research funding to highly qualified investigators. These diverse researchers range from young investigators to more seasoned leaders in GI, all embarking on novel research projects that will advance our understanding of digestive conditions and pave the way for future discoveries in the field.

To our AGA Research Foundation donors, we sincerely thank you for your gifts.

We invite the GI community to join others in supporting and helping spark the scientific breakthroughs of today so clinicians will have the tools to improve care tomorrow.

Make your tax-deductible gift today at www.gastro.org/donateonline.






 

For our next installment of the Gastro Journal Club, we are honored to host Professor Willemijn de Klaver, MD, PhD, and Professor Evelien Dekker, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers in the Netherlands. They are joined by fellows from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City for a discussion of the article “Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program,” published in the September 2024 issue of Gastroenterology .

Visit our YouTube Channel (youtube.com/@AmerGastroAssn) to watch the session.

The Gastro Journal Club is by and for fellows and residents. During these sessions, fellows and residents have the opportunity to ask authors questions about their recently published work in Gastroenterology. If you are interested in arranging a Gastro Journal Club session at your institution, please contact mpogachar@gastro.org.






 

For our next installment of the Gastro Journal Club, we are honored to host Professor Willemijn de Klaver, MD, PhD, and Professor Evelien Dekker, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers in the Netherlands. They are joined by fellows from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City for a discussion of the article “Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program,” published in the September 2024 issue of Gastroenterology .

Visit our YouTube Channel (youtube.com/@AmerGastroAssn) to watch the session.

The Gastro Journal Club is by and for fellows and residents. During these sessions, fellows and residents have the opportunity to ask authors questions about their recently published work in Gastroenterology. If you are interested in arranging a Gastro Journal Club session at your institution, please contact mpogachar@gastro.org.






 

For our next installment of the Gastro Journal Club, we are honored to host Professor Willemijn de Klaver, MD, PhD, and Professor Evelien Dekker, PhD, from Amsterdam University Medical Centers in the Netherlands. They are joined by fellows from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City for a discussion of the article “Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program,” published in the September 2024 issue of Gastroenterology .

Visit our YouTube Channel (youtube.com/@AmerGastroAssn) to watch the session.

The Gastro Journal Club is by and for fellows and residents. During these sessions, fellows and residents have the opportunity to ask authors questions about their recently published work in Gastroenterology. If you are interested in arranging a Gastro Journal Club session at your institution, please contact mpogachar@gastro.org.