Conference Coverage

Most plant-based milks, such as almond or oat milk, have less calcium, vitamin D, and protein than what is found in cow’s milk, a cornerstone beverage for meeting nutritional needs, according to research from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 

To make up for it, many plant-based milks are fortified with calcium and vitamin D, but most still lack the same level of protein found in cow’s milk, researchers found. The analysis included more than 200 plant-based milk alternatives, including those made from almonds, cashews, coconuts, flax, hazelnuts, hemp, oats, pistachios, rice, soy, and walnuts. The findings, which have not been published, were presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual conference in Boston.

“About half were fortified with vitamin D, two-thirds were fortified with calcium, and nearly 20% had protein levels similar to cow’s milk,” said lead study author Abigail Johnson, PhD, RD.

Dr. Johnson is the director of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center, which maintains a database of 19,000 foods for dietary research.

“I’m not seriously concerned about this, as it’s easy to get these nutrients from other sources, and cow’s milk certainly isn’t perfect and infallible,” Dr. Johnson said. “But if a consumer thinks plant-based milks are a one-to-one substitution for dairy, many of them are not.”

Consumers should read product labels and choose those that list calcium and vitamin D as ingredients, as well as consider adding other sources of calcium and vitamin D to their diets, Dr. Johnson said in a statement.

The research team plans to study plant-based milk alternatives further, such as how the products contain fiber, which cow’s milk does not. Nutrition experts explained that plant-based products have attractive features such as less fat, lower cholesterol, and higher fiber, in addition to being produced using more environmentally friendly methods, compared with cow’s milk.

Current U.S. dietary guidelines state that most plant-based milks don’t contribute to meeting recommended amounts of dairy nutrients, because their nutritional content is not similar to dairy milk or to fortified soy beverages. As many as 9 in 10 people in the U.S. don’t meet the current recommendations for dairy intake, the USDA says. An estimated 65% of U.S. children drink milk daily, and just 20% of adults drink dairy milk. Many dairy products contain high levels of added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, the guidelines warn.

“Most individuals would benefit by increasing intake of dairy in fat-free or low-fat forms, whether from milk (including lactose-free milk), yogurt, and cheese, or from fortified soy beverages or soy yogurt,” the guidelines state. “Strategies to increase dairy intake include drinking fat-free or low-fat milk or a fortified soy beverage with meals or incorporating unsweetened fat-free or low-fat yogurt into breakfast or snacks.”

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

Most plant-based milks, such as almond or oat milk, have less calcium, vitamin D, and protein than what is found in cow’s milk, a cornerstone beverage for meeting nutritional needs, according to research from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 

To make up for it, many plant-based milks are fortified with calcium and vitamin D, but most still lack the same level of protein found in cow’s milk, researchers found. The analysis included more than 200 plant-based milk alternatives, including those made from almonds, cashews, coconuts, flax, hazelnuts, hemp, oats, pistachios, rice, soy, and walnuts. The findings, which have not been published, were presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual conference in Boston.

“About half were fortified with vitamin D, two-thirds were fortified with calcium, and nearly 20% had protein levels similar to cow’s milk,” said lead study author Abigail Johnson, PhD, RD.

Dr. Johnson is the director of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center, which maintains a database of 19,000 foods for dietary research.

“I’m not seriously concerned about this, as it’s easy to get these nutrients from other sources, and cow’s milk certainly isn’t perfect and infallible,” Dr. Johnson said. “But if a consumer thinks plant-based milks are a one-to-one substitution for dairy, many of them are not.”

Consumers should read product labels and choose those that list calcium and vitamin D as ingredients, as well as consider adding other sources of calcium and vitamin D to their diets, Dr. Johnson said in a statement.

The research team plans to study plant-based milk alternatives further, such as how the products contain fiber, which cow’s milk does not. Nutrition experts explained that plant-based products have attractive features such as less fat, lower cholesterol, and higher fiber, in addition to being produced using more environmentally friendly methods, compared with cow’s milk.

Current U.S. dietary guidelines state that most plant-based milks don’t contribute to meeting recommended amounts of dairy nutrients, because their nutritional content is not similar to dairy milk or to fortified soy beverages. As many as 9 in 10 people in the U.S. don’t meet the current recommendations for dairy intake, the USDA says. An estimated 65% of U.S. children drink milk daily, and just 20% of adults drink dairy milk. Many dairy products contain high levels of added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, the guidelines warn.

“Most individuals would benefit by increasing intake of dairy in fat-free or low-fat forms, whether from milk (including lactose-free milk), yogurt, and cheese, or from fortified soy beverages or soy yogurt,” the guidelines state. “Strategies to increase dairy intake include drinking fat-free or low-fat milk or a fortified soy beverage with meals or incorporating unsweetened fat-free or low-fat yogurt into breakfast or snacks.”

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

Most plant-based milks, such as almond or oat milk, have less calcium, vitamin D, and protein than what is found in cow’s milk, a cornerstone beverage for meeting nutritional needs, according to research from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 

To make up for it, many plant-based milks are fortified with calcium and vitamin D, but most still lack the same level of protein found in cow’s milk, researchers found. The analysis included more than 200 plant-based milk alternatives, including those made from almonds, cashews, coconuts, flax, hazelnuts, hemp, oats, pistachios, rice, soy, and walnuts. The findings, which have not been published, were presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s annual conference in Boston.

“About half were fortified with vitamin D, two-thirds were fortified with calcium, and nearly 20% had protein levels similar to cow’s milk,” said lead study author Abigail Johnson, PhD, RD.

Dr. Johnson is the director of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center, which maintains a database of 19,000 foods for dietary research.

“I’m not seriously concerned about this, as it’s easy to get these nutrients from other sources, and cow’s milk certainly isn’t perfect and infallible,” Dr. Johnson said. “But if a consumer thinks plant-based milks are a one-to-one substitution for dairy, many of them are not.”

Consumers should read product labels and choose those that list calcium and vitamin D as ingredients, as well as consider adding other sources of calcium and vitamin D to their diets, Dr. Johnson said in a statement.

The research team plans to study plant-based milk alternatives further, such as how the products contain fiber, which cow’s milk does not. Nutrition experts explained that plant-based products have attractive features such as less fat, lower cholesterol, and higher fiber, in addition to being produced using more environmentally friendly methods, compared with cow’s milk.

Current U.S. dietary guidelines state that most plant-based milks don’t contribute to meeting recommended amounts of dairy nutrients, because their nutritional content is not similar to dairy milk or to fortified soy beverages. As many as 9 in 10 people in the U.S. don’t meet the current recommendations for dairy intake, the USDA says. An estimated 65% of U.S. children drink milk daily, and just 20% of adults drink dairy milk. Many dairy products contain high levels of added sugar, saturated fat, and sodium, the guidelines warn.

“Most individuals would benefit by increasing intake of dairy in fat-free or low-fat forms, whether from milk (including lactose-free milk), yogurt, and cheese, or from fortified soy beverages or soy yogurt,” the guidelines state. “Strategies to increase dairy intake include drinking fat-free or low-fat milk or a fortified soy beverage with meals or incorporating unsweetened fat-free or low-fat yogurt into breakfast or snacks.”

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

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

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

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

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Monitoring early-response biomarkers in patients receiving lutetium-177 (¹⁷⁷Lu)–PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer may allow physicians to personalize dosing intervals and improve patient outcomes, new research suggests.

The findings indicate that implementing a personalized dosing strategy with the radioligand therapy “allowed for treatment holidays in excellent responders, continuous 6-weekly treatments in moderate responders, and [allowed us] to consider changing or adding treatment in limited responders,” said study author Andrew Nguyen, MBBS, FRACP, AANMS, senior staff specialist in the department of theranostics and nuclear medicine at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney.

The research was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA is an effective treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, the question remains: Can patient outcomes be improved through the use of biomarkers and by escalating or deescalating treatment as appropriate? asked Dr. Nguyen, who presented the findings at the meeting.

Clinical trials use standardized dosing intervals. Adjusting treatment intervals through the use of early-biomarker responses could give some patients a break from treatment and improve overall survival outcomes, Dr. Nguyen explained. For example, the 2021 REALITY study showed that overall survival was significantly better for patients who received ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA plus standard care, compared with patients who received standard care alone (median, 15.3 vs. 11.3 months), and that overall survival was better among patients with early prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

In the current study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues used composite early biomarkers of PSA, imaging with 1⁷⁷Lu-PSMA SPECT, and diagnostic CT to guide a personalized dosing interval strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA. The team evaluated progression-free survival and overall survival among these patients to determine whether personalizing dosing on the basis of early biomarker levels was associated with survival outcomes.

The cohort included 125 men who received six weekly doses of ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA and who underwent imaging with ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT/CT after each dose. After the second dose, investigators used the composite of PSA and ¹⁷⁷Lu SPECT/CT response to determine which patients had a partial response, which had stable disease, and which had progressive disease.

The men were divided into three groups on the basis of their level of response. Group 1, which included 35% of participants, achieved a significant reduction in PSA levels and a partial response on ¹⁷⁷Lu-SPECT. These patients were advised to discontinue treatment until PSA levels increased. This treatment holiday lasted a median of about 6 months.

Group 2, which represented 34% of the cohort, had stable or reduced PSA levels as well as stable disease on SPECT imaging. For these patients, the treatment regimen continued.

Group 3 demonstrated rising PSA levels and progressive disease on SPECT imaging. These men were offered an alternative therapy.

Overall, median PSA progression-free survival was 12.1 months in group 1, 6.1 months in group 2, and 2.6 months in group 3. Median overall survival was also significantly better among patients who showed early responses to therapy: 19.2 months in group 1, 13.2 months in group 2, and 11. 2 months in group 3.

Dr. Nguyen noted several limitations to the findings, including the study’s retrospective nature and the fact that some patients in group 1 chose not to resume further treatment after their PSA levels rose.

“Personalizing dosing intervals using early-response biomarkers with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA has the potential to achieve similar overall treatment responses to that published for continuous dosing, while allowing treatment holidays in responders and early crossover to potentially more effective therapies in nonresponders,” the authors conclude.

Given the effectiveness of this strategy, Dr. Nguyen says his team “now routinely uses these composite biomarkers when treating clinical patients.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.