Latest News

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Oral doxycycline (200 mg twice daily for 28 days) appears to be as effective as intravenous (IV) penicillin for the treatment of ocular syphilis for some patients with the condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of ocular syphilis cases diagnosed from 2017 to 2023 in Los Angeles, analyzing 32 patients with a median age of 46 years (78% men).
• Patients treated before January 2022 received IV doxycycline, while those treated after that date were given the option to receive an oral form of the drug.
• A total of 16 patients received oral doxycycline (seven patients received only oral doxycycline; nine received a short course of parenteral penicillin followed by a full course of oral doxycycline); another 16 patients received a full course of IV penicillin.
• The analysis measured visual acuity (VA), ocular inflammation, and rapid plasma reagin (RPR).

TAKEAWAY:

• The doxycycline group had better median VA at both the initial presentation and the final follow-up than the penicillin group (VA, 0.44, 0.18; P = .04; VA, 1.0, 0.40; P = .03, respectively).
• Resolution of ocular inflammation showed no significant differences between the doxycycline and IV penicillin groups (P = .62 for both).
• All patients who had follow-up at 9 months demonstrated a fourfold decrease in RPR titers (four people in the oral doxycycline group and seven people in the IV penicillin group).

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that oral doxycycline for the treatment of ocular syphilis may be safe and effective in a selected subset of patients who completed an extended oral antibiotic regimen,” the study authors wrote. “Other studies have also demonstrated similar efficacy of oral therapy when compared with IV therapy. A fourfold decrease in RPR titers was considered an adequate serologic treatment response and corresponds with resolution of syphilis disease activity. This was observed in all patients with more than 9 months of follow-up. Long-term monitoring is recommended for those treated with doxycycline to ensure clinical and serologic response.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Brian C. Toy, MD, of the Roski Eye Institute at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature, used heterogeneous treatment methods, and lacked longitudinal RPR titers.

DISCLOSURES:

Toy served on physician advisory boards for Alimera, EyePoint, Bausch and Lomb, and Regeneron. No other disclosures were reported.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Oral doxycycline (200 mg twice daily for 28 days) appears to be as effective as intravenous (IV) penicillin for the treatment of ocular syphilis for some patients with the condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of ocular syphilis cases diagnosed from 2017 to 2023 in Los Angeles, analyzing 32 patients with a median age of 46 years (78% men).
• Patients treated before January 2022 received IV doxycycline, while those treated after that date were given the option to receive an oral form of the drug.
• A total of 16 patients received oral doxycycline (seven patients received only oral doxycycline; nine received a short course of parenteral penicillin followed by a full course of oral doxycycline); another 16 patients received a full course of IV penicillin.
• The analysis measured visual acuity (VA), ocular inflammation, and rapid plasma reagin (RPR).

TAKEAWAY:

• The doxycycline group had better median VA at both the initial presentation and the final follow-up than the penicillin group (VA, 0.44, 0.18; P = .04; VA, 1.0, 0.40; P = .03, respectively).
• Resolution of ocular inflammation showed no significant differences between the doxycycline and IV penicillin groups (P = .62 for both).
• All patients who had follow-up at 9 months demonstrated a fourfold decrease in RPR titers (four people in the oral doxycycline group and seven people in the IV penicillin group).

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that oral doxycycline for the treatment of ocular syphilis may be safe and effective in a selected subset of patients who completed an extended oral antibiotic regimen,” the study authors wrote. “Other studies have also demonstrated similar efficacy of oral therapy when compared with IV therapy. A fourfold decrease in RPR titers was considered an adequate serologic treatment response and corresponds with resolution of syphilis disease activity. This was observed in all patients with more than 9 months of follow-up. Long-term monitoring is recommended for those treated with doxycycline to ensure clinical and serologic response.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Brian C. Toy, MD, of the Roski Eye Institute at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature, used heterogeneous treatment methods, and lacked longitudinal RPR titers.

DISCLOSURES:

Toy served on physician advisory boards for Alimera, EyePoint, Bausch and Lomb, and Regeneron. No other disclosures were reported.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Oral doxycycline (200 mg twice daily for 28 days) appears to be as effective as intravenous (IV) penicillin for the treatment of ocular syphilis for some patients with the condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of ocular syphilis cases diagnosed from 2017 to 2023 in Los Angeles, analyzing 32 patients with a median age of 46 years (78% men).
• Patients treated before January 2022 received IV doxycycline, while those treated after that date were given the option to receive an oral form of the drug.
• A total of 16 patients received oral doxycycline (seven patients received only oral doxycycline; nine received a short course of parenteral penicillin followed by a full course of oral doxycycline); another 16 patients received a full course of IV penicillin.
• The analysis measured visual acuity (VA), ocular inflammation, and rapid plasma reagin (RPR).

TAKEAWAY:

• The doxycycline group had better median VA at both the initial presentation and the final follow-up than the penicillin group (VA, 0.44, 0.18; P = .04; VA, 1.0, 0.40; P = .03, respectively).
• Resolution of ocular inflammation showed no significant differences between the doxycycline and IV penicillin groups (P = .62 for both).
• All patients who had follow-up at 9 months demonstrated a fourfold decrease in RPR titers (four people in the oral doxycycline group and seven people in the IV penicillin group).

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that oral doxycycline for the treatment of ocular syphilis may be safe and effective in a selected subset of patients who completed an extended oral antibiotic regimen,” the study authors wrote. “Other studies have also demonstrated similar efficacy of oral therapy when compared with IV therapy. A fourfold decrease in RPR titers was considered an adequate serologic treatment response and corresponds with resolution of syphilis disease activity. This was observed in all patients with more than 9 months of follow-up. Long-term monitoring is recommended for those treated with doxycycline to ensure clinical and serologic response.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Brian C. Toy, MD, of the Roski Eye Institute at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature, used heterogeneous treatment methods, and lacked longitudinal RPR titers.

DISCLOSURES:

Toy served on physician advisory boards for Alimera, EyePoint, Bausch and Lomb, and Regeneron. No other disclosures were reported.

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

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

There was a recent flurry of excitement when UK researchers from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, a nonprofit genomics and genetics research organization in Cambridge, England, announced their creation of the most detailed cell map of the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract up to this point. Using spatial and single-cell data from 1.6 million cells (from 271 donors), the scientists’ work, published in Nature, yields valuable information about the gut’s health and disease states.

“We now have a nice idea of what cell types we can find in the gut,” said co-author Rasa Elmentaite, PhD, co-founder and head of Genomics and Data Science at Ensocell.

No small question: How, exactly, does one go about mapping the human gut?

The story behind the construction of the Gut Cell Atlas, an arm of the larger Human Cell Atlas project — which recently published more than 40 studies in Nature in November 2024 — is one of global collaboration and scientific precision across continents.

Most of all, Elmentaite said, it has taken the scientists involved down paths they never anticipated.

 

How It Began

Over the past 5-7 years, there have been many individual publications across institutes where research labs have created snippets of what the cells in the gut look like, said Elmentaite, referring to the GI tract, which in this case encompasses the mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, rectum, and anus.

Labs studying gut cells often focus on one specific region, for example, the small intestine or the large intestine, if they’re working on Crohn’s disease research. “It makes sense. The GI tract is really regionalized,” she said.

In 2019 and 2021, Elmentaite and her colleagues published papers that mapped some cells in the human gut, and their work garnered attention from other scientists around the world. That’s how they decided to take on the challenge of creating a more comprehensive map of the cells in both the healthy gut and in GI tracts where disease is present.

“We realized there are so many other labs interested in understanding the intestinal tract holistically,” she said. “We thought it would be really interesting to look at the cells in the context of the whole GI system.”

 

Not a Bad ‘Lockdown Project’

During the pandemic, while the rest of society was playing with sourdough starter, Elmentaite’s lab decided to pool their datasets with data from other labs to see what happened. They had more than 20 datasets at the time and wanted to generate more to fill gaps where there was less information available (eg, data on the cells in the stomach).

“It required getting samples from surgeons, going into the lab and processing those samples into single cells, and then processing that data bioinformatically,” said Elmentaite.

She explained that generating more datasets was not a job for one person and “required convincing a lot of scientists that it was worthwhile,” including a cancer biologist and a mucosal immunologist. They also brought in more technical bioinformatics expertise and recruited an IT team — several people who only worked on processing data and clearing it, “so it was aligned very specifically, and processed very uniformly, across the study,” Elmentaite said.

In the end, with researchers coming together on many Zoom calls from Australia, Germany, Norway, Spain, and numerous locations across the United Kingdom, they were able to integrate 25 single-cell RNA sequencing datasets that encompassed the entire healthy GI tract in development and in adults, leading to a healthy gut reference atlas that includes about 1.1 million cells and 136 cell subgroups.

 

How to Build a Two-Dimensional (2D) Map of the Gut

Here’s where the weeds get taller: Raw sequencing reads — bits of different RNA that the researchers sequenced from individual biological samples — needed to be mapped back to genes so that the researchers could understand what kinds of genes were expressed in the samples.

“There is a lot of curation there that needs to happen because the versions of transcriptome [a complete set of RNA molecules in a single cell or tissue], and what the genome looks like, is evolving constantly. So we have to map it back to the same transcriptomic reference,” Elmentaite said.

Once they knew all the different genes active in a cell, the researchers were able, using bioinformatics, to pull all of the datasets together and visualize them in a 2D space — essentially, a representation of a map.

“The cells that are transcriptionally more similar to each other, they will cluster together. And the ones that are more distinct transcriptionally will be farther away from each other,” Elmentaite said.

For decades, GI tract researchers had individually studied which types of genes are activated in an epithelial cell vs a T cell vs a B cell, she said, and “then suddenly you’re seeing it on your screen all at once. It’s amazing to see.”

 

In Brutal Detail

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting the data involved many people who made sure that there were no technical differences between the samples, Elmentaite said.

For example, samples processed in different labs may have sequencing differences between them. Or the kind of enzymes used to process the tissue might have been different from lab to lab. Sometimes they’d even record down to the detail what time of the day a sample was collected, if that information was available.

“Computationally, we considered all of these variables and tried to regress as much of that as possible. And then, if we saw clusters that resembled gene expression that we know is consistent with some of the cell types, then we knew that we’d regressed all the batch effects,” said Elmentaite.

 

Before ‘Eureka’ Comes a Few ‘Aha’ Moments

There were many “aha moments,” but also some puzzling ones, she said. One of the biggest surprises was seeing that the identity of a cell believed to be set from development can actually change if a person has a lot of irritation and inflammation, as occurs in inflammatory bowel disease. Epithelial cell metaplasia was one of the surprises.

“Metaplasia describes an activation or differentiation of one differentiated cell type into another differentiated cell type. And we knew that that exists in some of the upper GI diseases, but we didn’t realize that the same sort of mechanism exists in the small intestine,” Elmentaite said.

Epithelial cells are among the most abundant cells in the body. The researchers knew from established research that these cells act a bit like first responders and provide healing to the gut. “We could see that they were producing a lot of mucous that helps to potentially flush down the microbes that are triggering inflammation. But the ‘aha moment’ for us was that actually there’s a dual function in these cells,” she said.

They could see in the transcriptional profile a significant production of chemokines (a family of proteins that play a role in the body’s immune responses) and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules (cell surface proteins involved in the body’s immune response), and the epithelial cells seemed to attract neutrophils and monocytes and to interact with certain T cells — adding to the cycle of chronic inflammation.

“I think for a lot of us, this was a surprise because we think of epithelial cells as more like a barrier, just a passive player in, for example, inflammatory bowel disease,” said Elmentaite.

In addition to reporting their findings on epithelial cell metaplasia, the researchers processed 12 GI disease datasets, including celiac disease, Crohn’s disease, GI-related cancers, and ulcerative colitis.

 

A Gut Cell Atlas for the People (Well, Scientific People)

“The Gut Cell Atlas is usable for everyone, and everyone has a chance to contribute,” said Elmentaite. But 1.6 million cells is only a start and more data are needed, she said, and efforts are being spearheaded at the broader Human Cell Atlas project to collect it. There are also efforts to get all researchers using the same cell annotation, research-wide standards that will make the atlas truly usable for everyone.

Keith Summa, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, focuses much of his work on inflammatory bowel disease as well as disorders of the gut-brain interaction. He conducts basic and translational research using experimental models of intestinal inflammation.

At Northwestern University, they have a tissue biorepository. It includes colon and intestine tissue samples from healthy individuals as well as individuals with different disease states. “One potential area where I could see this being a useful tool for us is that we could utilize the Gut Cell Atlas in the analysis of our tissue samples to see if we find commonalities between what’s described in the atlas and then what we’re observing,” said Summa, who was not involved in the UK-based project.

He said Northwestern University’s biorepository has details about what medications people were on and the extent and severity of their disease.

“We may be able to utilize the Gut Cell Atlas to help us look at specific factors in terms of how people are responding to different treatments, how different cell types are affected by different treatments, or how they are active or not active in different severities of disease. It may help us provide more precision to our understanding of these different conditions,” said Summa.

He also noted how GI specialists use “Crohn’s disease” as a single diagnosis, “but that encompasses a pretty wide spectrum of phenotypes and behaviors,” he said. “I think looking at such a cell-specific level may help to better identify some of the different pathways that are active and the different phenotypes or behaviors of this disease.” 

 

Next Step: Visualize It in a Three-Dimensional (3D) Space

The next stage for Elmentaite and her colleagues is to evolve the 2D map into a 3D map so they can visualize which cells are where and how they are organized in space.

“The next step, which I think is super exciting, is understanding how these cells depend on each other,” she said. “Really functionally understanding if some of them are essential and others are not. And doing AI modeling to understand what we can learn from this vast amount of data that we’re generating. And of course, that includes how we use this knowledge to create precision therapies.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There was a recent flurry of excitement when UK researchers from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, a nonprofit genomics and genetics research organization in Cambridge, England, announced their creation of the most detailed cell map of the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract up to this point. Using spatial and single-cell data from 1.6 million cells (from 271 donors), the scientists’ work, published in Nature, yields valuable information about the gut’s health and disease states.

“We now have a nice idea of what cell types we can find in the gut,” said co-author Rasa Elmentaite, PhD, co-founder and head of Genomics and Data Science at Ensocell.

No small question: How, exactly, does one go about mapping the human gut?

The story behind the construction of the Gut Cell Atlas, an arm of the larger Human Cell Atlas project — which recently published more than 40 studies in Nature in November 2024 — is one of global collaboration and scientific precision across continents.

Most of all, Elmentaite said, it has taken the scientists involved down paths they never anticipated.

 

How It Began

Over the past 5-7 years, there have been many individual publications across institutes where research labs have created snippets of what the cells in the gut look like, said Elmentaite, referring to the GI tract, which in this case encompasses the mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, rectum, and anus.

Labs studying gut cells often focus on one specific region, for example, the small intestine or the large intestine, if they’re working on Crohn’s disease research. “It makes sense. The GI tract is really regionalized,” she said.

In 2019 and 2021, Elmentaite and her colleagues published papers that mapped some cells in the human gut, and their work garnered attention from other scientists around the world. That’s how they decided to take on the challenge of creating a more comprehensive map of the cells in both the healthy gut and in GI tracts where disease is present.

“We realized there are so many other labs interested in understanding the intestinal tract holistically,” she said. “We thought it would be really interesting to look at the cells in the context of the whole GI system.”

 

Not a Bad ‘Lockdown Project’

During the pandemic, while the rest of society was playing with sourdough starter, Elmentaite’s lab decided to pool their datasets with data from other labs to see what happened. They had more than 20 datasets at the time and wanted to generate more to fill gaps where there was less information available (eg, data on the cells in the stomach).

“It required getting samples from surgeons, going into the lab and processing those samples into single cells, and then processing that data bioinformatically,” said Elmentaite.

She explained that generating more datasets was not a job for one person and “required convincing a lot of scientists that it was worthwhile,” including a cancer biologist and a mucosal immunologist. They also brought in more technical bioinformatics expertise and recruited an IT team — several people who only worked on processing data and clearing it, “so it was aligned very specifically, and processed very uniformly, across the study,” Elmentaite said.

In the end, with researchers coming together on many Zoom calls from Australia, Germany, Norway, Spain, and numerous locations across the United Kingdom, they were able to integrate 25 single-cell RNA sequencing datasets that encompassed the entire healthy GI tract in development and in adults, leading to a healthy gut reference atlas that includes about 1.1 million cells and 136 cell subgroups.

 

How to Build a Two-Dimensional (2D) Map of the Gut

Here’s where the weeds get taller: Raw sequencing reads — bits of different RNA that the researchers sequenced from individual biological samples — needed to be mapped back to genes so that the researchers could understand what kinds of genes were expressed in the samples.

“There is a lot of curation there that needs to happen because the versions of transcriptome [a complete set of RNA molecules in a single cell or tissue], and what the genome looks like, is evolving constantly. So we have to map it back to the same transcriptomic reference,” Elmentaite said.

Once they knew all the different genes active in a cell, the researchers were able, using bioinformatics, to pull all of the datasets together and visualize them in a 2D space — essentially, a representation of a map.

“The cells that are transcriptionally more similar to each other, they will cluster together. And the ones that are more distinct transcriptionally will be farther away from each other,” Elmentaite said.

For decades, GI tract researchers had individually studied which types of genes are activated in an epithelial cell vs a T cell vs a B cell, she said, and “then suddenly you’re seeing it on your screen all at once. It’s amazing to see.”

 

In Brutal Detail

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting the data involved many people who made sure that there were no technical differences between the samples, Elmentaite said.

For example, samples processed in different labs may have sequencing differences between them. Or the kind of enzymes used to process the tissue might have been different from lab to lab. Sometimes they’d even record down to the detail what time of the day a sample was collected, if that information was available.

“Computationally, we considered all of these variables and tried to regress as much of that as possible. And then, if we saw clusters that resembled gene expression that we know is consistent with some of the cell types, then we knew that we’d regressed all the batch effects,” said Elmentaite.

 

Before ‘Eureka’ Comes a Few ‘Aha’ Moments

There were many “aha moments,” but also some puzzling ones, she said. One of the biggest surprises was seeing that the identity of a cell believed to be set from development can actually change if a person has a lot of irritation and inflammation, as occurs in inflammatory bowel disease. Epithelial cell metaplasia was one of the surprises.

“Metaplasia describes an activation or differentiation of one differentiated cell type into another differentiated cell type. And we knew that that exists in some of the upper GI diseases, but we didn’t realize that the same sort of mechanism exists in the small intestine,” Elmentaite said.

Epithelial cells are among the most abundant cells in the body. The researchers knew from established research that these cells act a bit like first responders and provide healing to the gut. “We could see that they were producing a lot of mucous that helps to potentially flush down the microbes that are triggering inflammation. But the ‘aha moment’ for us was that actually there’s a dual function in these cells,” she said.

They could see in the transcriptional profile a significant production of chemokines (a family of proteins that play a role in the body’s immune responses) and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules (cell surface proteins involved in the body’s immune response), and the epithelial cells seemed to attract neutrophils and monocytes and to interact with certain T cells — adding to the cycle of chronic inflammation.

“I think for a lot of us, this was a surprise because we think of epithelial cells as more like a barrier, just a passive player in, for example, inflammatory bowel disease,” said Elmentaite.

In addition to reporting their findings on epithelial cell metaplasia, the researchers processed 12 GI disease datasets, including celiac disease, Crohn’s disease, GI-related cancers, and ulcerative colitis.

 

A Gut Cell Atlas for the People (Well, Scientific People)

“The Gut Cell Atlas is usable for everyone, and everyone has a chance to contribute,” said Elmentaite. But 1.6 million cells is only a start and more data are needed, she said, and efforts are being spearheaded at the broader Human Cell Atlas project to collect it. There are also efforts to get all researchers using the same cell annotation, research-wide standards that will make the atlas truly usable for everyone.

Keith Summa, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, focuses much of his work on inflammatory bowel disease as well as disorders of the gut-brain interaction. He conducts basic and translational research using experimental models of intestinal inflammation.

At Northwestern University, they have a tissue biorepository. It includes colon and intestine tissue samples from healthy individuals as well as individuals with different disease states. “One potential area where I could see this being a useful tool for us is that we could utilize the Gut Cell Atlas in the analysis of our tissue samples to see if we find commonalities between what’s described in the atlas and then what we’re observing,” said Summa, who was not involved in the UK-based project.

He said Northwestern University’s biorepository has details about what medications people were on and the extent and severity of their disease.

“We may be able to utilize the Gut Cell Atlas to help us look at specific factors in terms of how people are responding to different treatments, how different cell types are affected by different treatments, or how they are active or not active in different severities of disease. It may help us provide more precision to our understanding of these different conditions,” said Summa.

He also noted how GI specialists use “Crohn’s disease” as a single diagnosis, “but that encompasses a pretty wide spectrum of phenotypes and behaviors,” he said. “I think looking at such a cell-specific level may help to better identify some of the different pathways that are active and the different phenotypes or behaviors of this disease.” 

 

Next Step: Visualize It in a Three-Dimensional (3D) Space

The next stage for Elmentaite and her colleagues is to evolve the 2D map into a 3D map so they can visualize which cells are where and how they are organized in space.

“The next step, which I think is super exciting, is understanding how these cells depend on each other,” she said. “Really functionally understanding if some of them are essential and others are not. And doing AI modeling to understand what we can learn from this vast amount of data that we’re generating. And of course, that includes how we use this knowledge to create precision therapies.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There was a recent flurry of excitement when UK researchers from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, a nonprofit genomics and genetics research organization in Cambridge, England, announced their creation of the most detailed cell map of the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract up to this point. Using spatial and single-cell data from 1.6 million cells (from 271 donors), the scientists’ work, published in Nature, yields valuable information about the gut’s health and disease states.

“We now have a nice idea of what cell types we can find in the gut,” said co-author Rasa Elmentaite, PhD, co-founder and head of Genomics and Data Science at Ensocell.

No small question: How, exactly, does one go about mapping the human gut?

The story behind the construction of the Gut Cell Atlas, an arm of the larger Human Cell Atlas project — which recently published more than 40 studies in Nature in November 2024 — is one of global collaboration and scientific precision across continents.

Most of all, Elmentaite said, it has taken the scientists involved down paths they never anticipated.

 

How It Began

Over the past 5-7 years, there have been many individual publications across institutes where research labs have created snippets of what the cells in the gut look like, said Elmentaite, referring to the GI tract, which in this case encompasses the mouth, throat, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, rectum, and anus.

Labs studying gut cells often focus on one specific region, for example, the small intestine or the large intestine, if they’re working on Crohn’s disease research. “It makes sense. The GI tract is really regionalized,” she said.

In 2019 and 2021, Elmentaite and her colleagues published papers that mapped some cells in the human gut, and their work garnered attention from other scientists around the world. That’s how they decided to take on the challenge of creating a more comprehensive map of the cells in both the healthy gut and in GI tracts where disease is present.

“We realized there are so many other labs interested in understanding the intestinal tract holistically,” she said. “We thought it would be really interesting to look at the cells in the context of the whole GI system.”

 

Not a Bad ‘Lockdown Project’

During the pandemic, while the rest of society was playing with sourdough starter, Elmentaite’s lab decided to pool their datasets with data from other labs to see what happened. They had more than 20 datasets at the time and wanted to generate more to fill gaps where there was less information available (eg, data on the cells in the stomach).

“It required getting samples from surgeons, going into the lab and processing those samples into single cells, and then processing that data bioinformatically,” said Elmentaite.

She explained that generating more datasets was not a job for one person and “required convincing a lot of scientists that it was worthwhile,” including a cancer biologist and a mucosal immunologist. They also brought in more technical bioinformatics expertise and recruited an IT team — several people who only worked on processing data and clearing it, “so it was aligned very specifically, and processed very uniformly, across the study,” Elmentaite said.

In the end, with researchers coming together on many Zoom calls from Australia, Germany, Norway, Spain, and numerous locations across the United Kingdom, they were able to integrate 25 single-cell RNA sequencing datasets that encompassed the entire healthy GI tract in development and in adults, leading to a healthy gut reference atlas that includes about 1.1 million cells and 136 cell subgroups.

 

How to Build a Two-Dimensional (2D) Map of the Gut

Here’s where the weeds get taller: Raw sequencing reads — bits of different RNA that the researchers sequenced from individual biological samples — needed to be mapped back to genes so that the researchers could understand what kinds of genes were expressed in the samples.

“There is a lot of curation there that needs to happen because the versions of transcriptome [a complete set of RNA molecules in a single cell or tissue], and what the genome looks like, is evolving constantly. So we have to map it back to the same transcriptomic reference,” Elmentaite said.

Once they knew all the different genes active in a cell, the researchers were able, using bioinformatics, to pull all of the datasets together and visualize them in a 2D space — essentially, a representation of a map.

“The cells that are transcriptionally more similar to each other, they will cluster together. And the ones that are more distinct transcriptionally will be farther away from each other,” Elmentaite said.

For decades, GI tract researchers had individually studied which types of genes are activated in an epithelial cell vs a T cell vs a B cell, she said, and “then suddenly you’re seeing it on your screen all at once. It’s amazing to see.”

 

In Brutal Detail

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting the data involved many people who made sure that there were no technical differences between the samples, Elmentaite said.

For example, samples processed in different labs may have sequencing differences between them. Or the kind of enzymes used to process the tissue might have been different from lab to lab. Sometimes they’d even record down to the detail what time of the day a sample was collected, if that information was available.

“Computationally, we considered all of these variables and tried to regress as much of that as possible. And then, if we saw clusters that resembled gene expression that we know is consistent with some of the cell types, then we knew that we’d regressed all the batch effects,” said Elmentaite.

 

Before ‘Eureka’ Comes a Few ‘Aha’ Moments

There were many “aha moments,” but also some puzzling ones, she said. One of the biggest surprises was seeing that the identity of a cell believed to be set from development can actually change if a person has a lot of irritation and inflammation, as occurs in inflammatory bowel disease. Epithelial cell metaplasia was one of the surprises.

“Metaplasia describes an activation or differentiation of one differentiated cell type into another differentiated cell type. And we knew that that exists in some of the upper GI diseases, but we didn’t realize that the same sort of mechanism exists in the small intestine,” Elmentaite said.

Epithelial cells are among the most abundant cells in the body. The researchers knew from established research that these cells act a bit like first responders and provide healing to the gut. “We could see that they were producing a lot of mucous that helps to potentially flush down the microbes that are triggering inflammation. But the ‘aha moment’ for us was that actually there’s a dual function in these cells,” she said.

They could see in the transcriptional profile a significant production of chemokines (a family of proteins that play a role in the body’s immune responses) and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules (cell surface proteins involved in the body’s immune response), and the epithelial cells seemed to attract neutrophils and monocytes and to interact with certain T cells — adding to the cycle of chronic inflammation.

“I think for a lot of us, this was a surprise because we think of epithelial cells as more like a barrier, just a passive player in, for example, inflammatory bowel disease,” said Elmentaite.

In addition to reporting their findings on epithelial cell metaplasia, the researchers processed 12 GI disease datasets, including celiac disease, Crohn’s disease, GI-related cancers, and ulcerative colitis.

 

A Gut Cell Atlas for the People (Well, Scientific People)

“The Gut Cell Atlas is usable for everyone, and everyone has a chance to contribute,” said Elmentaite. But 1.6 million cells is only a start and more data are needed, she said, and efforts are being spearheaded at the broader Human Cell Atlas project to collect it. There are also efforts to get all researchers using the same cell annotation, research-wide standards that will make the atlas truly usable for everyone.

Keith Summa, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, focuses much of his work on inflammatory bowel disease as well as disorders of the gut-brain interaction. He conducts basic and translational research using experimental models of intestinal inflammation.

At Northwestern University, they have a tissue biorepository. It includes colon and intestine tissue samples from healthy individuals as well as individuals with different disease states. “One potential area where I could see this being a useful tool for us is that we could utilize the Gut Cell Atlas in the analysis of our tissue samples to see if we find commonalities between what’s described in the atlas and then what we’re observing,” said Summa, who was not involved in the UK-based project.

He said Northwestern University’s biorepository has details about what medications people were on and the extent and severity of their disease.

“We may be able to utilize the Gut Cell Atlas to help us look at specific factors in terms of how people are responding to different treatments, how different cell types are affected by different treatments, or how they are active or not active in different severities of disease. It may help us provide more precision to our understanding of these different conditions,” said Summa.

He also noted how GI specialists use “Crohn’s disease” as a single diagnosis, “but that encompasses a pretty wide spectrum of phenotypes and behaviors,” he said. “I think looking at such a cell-specific level may help to better identify some of the different pathways that are active and the different phenotypes or behaviors of this disease.” 

 

Next Step: Visualize It in a Three-Dimensional (3D) Space

The next stage for Elmentaite and her colleagues is to evolve the 2D map into a 3D map so they can visualize which cells are where and how they are organized in space.

“The next step, which I think is super exciting, is understanding how these cells depend on each other,” she said. “Really functionally understanding if some of them are essential and others are not. And doing AI modeling to understand what we can learn from this vast amount of data that we’re generating. And of course, that includes how we use this knowledge to create precision therapies.”

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows potential to intercept fibrotic organ manifestations and improve disease measures in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (SSc) who had disease progression despite multiple previous treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series to examine the effect of CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy on fibrotic and vascular organ manifestations in six patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc (median age, 42 years; four men and two women) who had an insufficient response to at least two previous treatments.
• Participants received CD19-targeting CAR T-cell treatment at a dose of 1 × 106 CAR T cells per kilogram of body weight after lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide.
• The primary outcome was event-free time or treatment intensification after study entry, with events defined as the progression of interstitial lung disease, onset of congestive heart or renal failure or arterial hypertension, or initiation of new therapy.
• The secondary outcomes included changes in the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), imaging and laboratory assessments, patient-reported outcomes, and the modified American College of Rheumatology Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (ACR-CRISS), assessed at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• No progression of organ manifestations or new lung, cardiac, or renal events occurred within the median follow-up period of 487 days.
• The probability of improvement in the ACR-CRISS score increased to a median value of 100% within 6 and 12 months of CAR T-cell treatment compared with baseline.
• Skin involvement improved in all the patients after CAR T-cell treatment, with a median mRSS decrease of 8 points within 100 days; the improvements were maintained throughout the 1-year follow-up period.
• This treatment also led to a depletion of antinuclear antibodies and SSc-specific autoantibodies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This case series highlights the potential of CAR T-cell therapy to address a crucial unmet need in refractory systemic sclerosis treatment. The study’s most significant contribution is the demonstration that CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy can halt or reverse aspects of fibrosis in systemic sclerosis,” Jérôme Avouac, Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP Centre-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Janina Auth, MD, Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen in Germany, and was published online on November 11, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, which limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy compared with standard treatments. The unpredictable nature of SSc, in which periods of stability can occur spontaneously, makes it difficult to attribute the improvements merely to the intervention. Moreover, the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on other disease manifestations, such as pulmonary hypertension, myocardial involvement, and scleroderma renal crisis, remains unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, ELAN Foundation Erlangen, Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Klinische Forschung Erlangen, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, and the European Union. Some authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, honoraria, or travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Almirall, and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows potential to intercept fibrotic organ manifestations and improve disease measures in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (SSc) who had disease progression despite multiple previous treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series to examine the effect of CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy on fibrotic and vascular organ manifestations in six patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc (median age, 42 years; four men and two women) who had an insufficient response to at least two previous treatments.
• Participants received CD19-targeting CAR T-cell treatment at a dose of 1 × 106 CAR T cells per kilogram of body weight after lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide.
• The primary outcome was event-free time or treatment intensification after study entry, with events defined as the progression of interstitial lung disease, onset of congestive heart or renal failure or arterial hypertension, or initiation of new therapy.
• The secondary outcomes included changes in the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), imaging and laboratory assessments, patient-reported outcomes, and the modified American College of Rheumatology Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (ACR-CRISS), assessed at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• No progression of organ manifestations or new lung, cardiac, or renal events occurred within the median follow-up period of 487 days.
• The probability of improvement in the ACR-CRISS score increased to a median value of 100% within 6 and 12 months of CAR T-cell treatment compared with baseline.
• Skin involvement improved in all the patients after CAR T-cell treatment, with a median mRSS decrease of 8 points within 100 days; the improvements were maintained throughout the 1-year follow-up period.
• This treatment also led to a depletion of antinuclear antibodies and SSc-specific autoantibodies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This case series highlights the potential of CAR T-cell therapy to address a crucial unmet need in refractory systemic sclerosis treatment. The study’s most significant contribution is the demonstration that CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy can halt or reverse aspects of fibrosis in systemic sclerosis,” Jérôme Avouac, Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP Centre-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Janina Auth, MD, Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen in Germany, and was published online on November 11, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, which limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy compared with standard treatments. The unpredictable nature of SSc, in which periods of stability can occur spontaneously, makes it difficult to attribute the improvements merely to the intervention. Moreover, the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on other disease manifestations, such as pulmonary hypertension, myocardial involvement, and scleroderma renal crisis, remains unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, ELAN Foundation Erlangen, Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Klinische Forschung Erlangen, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, and the European Union. Some authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, honoraria, or travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Almirall, and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows potential to intercept fibrotic organ manifestations and improve disease measures in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (SSc) who had disease progression despite multiple previous treatments.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series to examine the effect of CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy on fibrotic and vascular organ manifestations in six patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc (median age, 42 years; four men and two women) who had an insufficient response to at least two previous treatments.
• Participants received CD19-targeting CAR T-cell treatment at a dose of 1 × 106 CAR T cells per kilogram of body weight after lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide.
• The primary outcome was event-free time or treatment intensification after study entry, with events defined as the progression of interstitial lung disease, onset of congestive heart or renal failure or arterial hypertension, or initiation of new therapy.
• The secondary outcomes included changes in the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), imaging and laboratory assessments, patient-reported outcomes, and the modified American College of Rheumatology Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (ACR-CRISS), assessed at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• No progression of organ manifestations or new lung, cardiac, or renal events occurred within the median follow-up period of 487 days.
• The probability of improvement in the ACR-CRISS score increased to a median value of 100% within 6 and 12 months of CAR T-cell treatment compared with baseline.
• Skin involvement improved in all the patients after CAR T-cell treatment, with a median mRSS decrease of 8 points within 100 days; the improvements were maintained throughout the 1-year follow-up period.
• This treatment also led to a depletion of antinuclear antibodies and SSc-specific autoantibodies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This case series highlights the potential of CAR T-cell therapy to address a crucial unmet need in refractory systemic sclerosis treatment. The study’s most significant contribution is the demonstration that CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy can halt or reverse aspects of fibrosis in systemic sclerosis,” Jérôme Avouac, Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP Centre-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Janina Auth, MD, Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen in Germany, and was published online on November 11, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, which limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of CD19-targeting CAR T-cell therapy compared with standard treatments. The unpredictable nature of SSc, in which periods of stability can occur spontaneously, makes it difficult to attribute the improvements merely to the intervention. Moreover, the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on other disease manifestations, such as pulmonary hypertension, myocardial involvement, and scleroderma renal crisis, remains unclear.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, ELAN Foundation Erlangen, Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Klinische Forschung Erlangen, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, and the European Union. Some authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, honoraria, or travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Almirall, and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The initiation of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), particularly rituximab and abatacept, is associated with an increased risk for incident cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within 2 years of starting treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, non-TNF inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with RA using US administrative claims data from the Merative Marketscan Research Databases from November 2012 to December 2021.
• A total of 25,305 patients with RA (median age, 50 years; 79% women; 49% from the southern United States) were identified using diagnostic codes on or before treatment initiation.
• Treatment exposures, including the initiation of TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and infliximab), non-TNF inhibitors (abatacept, interleukin 6 [IL-6] inhibitors, and rituximab), and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib), were compared.
• The primary outcome was any incident cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurring after a minimum of 90 days and within 2 years of treatment initiation.
• Sensitivity analyses used 1:1 propensity matching to compare cancer rates between populations treated with rituximab, IL-6 inhibitors, abatacept, or JAK inhibitors and matched reference populations treated with TNF inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.17-3.14) and abatacept (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.11) were significantly associated with an increased risk for incident cancer, compared with TNF inhibitors.
• In the propensity-matched analysis, a statistically significant increase in risk was observed in patients treated with rituximab (aHR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.48-12.93) and abatacept (aHR, 3.12; 95%CI, 1.52-6.44).
• IL-6 inhibitors showed no significant association with cancer in the primary analysis, but a significantly increased risk was observed in the propensity-matched analysis (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.11-28.79).
• JAK inhibitors were not associated with a significant increase in the risk for cancer, compared with TNF inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the limitations of using private insurance claims data and confounding by indication, it is likely that these patients may have a higher disease burden, resulting in channeling bias,” the authors wrote. “To understand these associations, larger studies with longer follow-up and more granular collection of data, including medication indications and RA disease activity measures, would be needed for better comparison of incident cancer risk among these drugs,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xavier Sendaydiego, MD, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A relatively small number of cancer outcomes may have affected the ability to adjust for confounders. The follow-up period was limited to 2 years, potentially missing long-term cancer risks. The use of US-specific administrative claims data, including only patients aged 18-64 years, may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the claims data lacked direct measures of disease activity or severity of RA, and information on treatment adherence was unavailable, leading to potential misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute on Aging. Some authors reported receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and grants from various pharmaceutical companies or government sources. One author reported having a pending patent and another author reported receiving a fellowship, travel reimbursement, and royalties outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

The initiation of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), particularly rituximab and abatacept, is associated with an increased risk for incident cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within 2 years of starting treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, non-TNF inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with RA using US administrative claims data from the Merative Marketscan Research Databases from November 2012 to December 2021.
• A total of 25,305 patients with RA (median age, 50 years; 79% women; 49% from the southern United States) were identified using diagnostic codes on or before treatment initiation.
• Treatment exposures, including the initiation of TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and infliximab), non-TNF inhibitors (abatacept, interleukin 6 [IL-6] inhibitors, and rituximab), and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib), were compared.
• The primary outcome was any incident cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurring after a minimum of 90 days and within 2 years of treatment initiation.
• Sensitivity analyses used 1:1 propensity matching to compare cancer rates between populations treated with rituximab, IL-6 inhibitors, abatacept, or JAK inhibitors and matched reference populations treated with TNF inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.17-3.14) and abatacept (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.11) were significantly associated with an increased risk for incident cancer, compared with TNF inhibitors.
• In the propensity-matched analysis, a statistically significant increase in risk was observed in patients treated with rituximab (aHR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.48-12.93) and abatacept (aHR, 3.12; 95%CI, 1.52-6.44).
• IL-6 inhibitors showed no significant association with cancer in the primary analysis, but a significantly increased risk was observed in the propensity-matched analysis (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.11-28.79).
• JAK inhibitors were not associated with a significant increase in the risk for cancer, compared with TNF inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the limitations of using private insurance claims data and confounding by indication, it is likely that these patients may have a higher disease burden, resulting in channeling bias,” the authors wrote. “To understand these associations, larger studies with longer follow-up and more granular collection of data, including medication indications and RA disease activity measures, would be needed for better comparison of incident cancer risk among these drugs,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xavier Sendaydiego, MD, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A relatively small number of cancer outcomes may have affected the ability to adjust for confounders. The follow-up period was limited to 2 years, potentially missing long-term cancer risks. The use of US-specific administrative claims data, including only patients aged 18-64 years, may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the claims data lacked direct measures of disease activity or severity of RA, and information on treatment adherence was unavailable, leading to potential misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute on Aging. Some authors reported receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and grants from various pharmaceutical companies or government sources. One author reported having a pending patent and another author reported receiving a fellowship, travel reimbursement, and royalties outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

The initiation of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), particularly rituximab and abatacept, is associated with an increased risk for incident cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within 2 years of starting treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, non-TNF inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with RA using US administrative claims data from the Merative Marketscan Research Databases from November 2012 to December 2021.
• A total of 25,305 patients with RA (median age, 50 years; 79% women; 49% from the southern United States) were identified using diagnostic codes on or before treatment initiation.
• Treatment exposures, including the initiation of TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and infliximab), non-TNF inhibitors (abatacept, interleukin 6 [IL-6] inhibitors, and rituximab), and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib), were compared.
• The primary outcome was any incident cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurring after a minimum of 90 days and within 2 years of treatment initiation.
• Sensitivity analyses used 1:1 propensity matching to compare cancer rates between populations treated with rituximab, IL-6 inhibitors, abatacept, or JAK inhibitors and matched reference populations treated with TNF inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.17-3.14) and abatacept (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.11) were significantly associated with an increased risk for incident cancer, compared with TNF inhibitors.
• In the propensity-matched analysis, a statistically significant increase in risk was observed in patients treated with rituximab (aHR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.48-12.93) and abatacept (aHR, 3.12; 95%CI, 1.52-6.44).
• IL-6 inhibitors showed no significant association with cancer in the primary analysis, but a significantly increased risk was observed in the propensity-matched analysis (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.11-28.79).
• JAK inhibitors were not associated with a significant increase in the risk for cancer, compared with TNF inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the limitations of using private insurance claims data and confounding by indication, it is likely that these patients may have a higher disease burden, resulting in channeling bias,” the authors wrote. “To understand these associations, larger studies with longer follow-up and more granular collection of data, including medication indications and RA disease activity measures, would be needed for better comparison of incident cancer risk among these drugs,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xavier Sendaydiego, MD, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A relatively small number of cancer outcomes may have affected the ability to adjust for confounders. The follow-up period was limited to 2 years, potentially missing long-term cancer risks. The use of US-specific administrative claims data, including only patients aged 18-64 years, may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the claims data lacked direct measures of disease activity or severity of RA, and information on treatment adherence was unavailable, leading to potential misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute on Aging. Some authors reported receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and grants from various pharmaceutical companies or government sources. One author reported having a pending patent and another author reported receiving a fellowship, travel reimbursement, and royalties outside the submitted work.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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

For gout, xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors are the choice for first-line urate-lowering therapy (ULT) according to the 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout, which endorsed allopurinol, but should that be the approach for all patients, or should first-line therapy be tailored to the mechanism of each patient’s hyperuricemia? Two gout experts, Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, and Fernando Pérez-Ruiz, MD, PhD, consultant in the Rheumatology Division of Cruces University Hospital, Barakaldo, head of the Investigation Group for Arthritis at Biocruces Health Research Institute, Barakaldo, and associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine and Nursing at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, Spain, debated this question recently at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.

Before the debate began, audience members voted on the question and 56% favored using XO inhibitors as a first-line therapy for all rather than tailoring first-line therapy to disease mechanism.

Up first, Stamp argued that XO inhibitors should be first-line therapy for all patients with gout. She said that XO inhibitors have been demonstrated to work regardless of the cause of hyperuricemia and degree of kidney function, and they are cheap, readily available, and easy to administer. She showed results from a study published by her debate opponent, Pérez-Ruiz, which demonstrated efficacy of XO inhibitors in both under-excreters and over-excreters of uric acid. That study compared the efficacy of the XO inhibitor allopurinol to the uricosuric agent benzbromarone and found the latter to be more effective, but Stamp argued that the allopurinol dose used in the study — 300 mg/d — “may not be enough for many patients who have gout. Dose-restricting allopurinol is one way to demonstrate that an alternative agent is superior,” she said.

A more recent study showed low-dose benzbromarone was better than low-dose febuxostat, another XO inhibitor. “I think we do need to have clinical trials that reflect real-world practice. I accept that this may have reflected [accepted practice where the studies] were undertaken, but these [XO inhibitor] doses don’t represent what many of us would do in other parts of the world,” Stamp said.

One concern is the utility of a ULT in patients with impaired renal function. Stamp cited her own post hoc analysis of a randomized, controlled trial showing that allopurinol is effective irrespective of renal function, as long as the dose is escalated to achieve target urate level, and a meta-analysis of observational studies suggesting that febuxostat is effective irrespective of renal function.

On the other hand, she showed data from a 1994 study of benzbromarone in renal transplant recipients, which showed that the drug’s effect on decreasing plasma uric acid dropped off significantly with lower creatinine clearance. “It does work, but the efficacy really drops off as renal function decreases. Benzbromarone is probably the most effective uricosuric in patients with renal impairment, but this agent is not readily available,” Stamp said.

The uricosuric agent probenecid, which is generally available across the world, led to only about 30% success in achieving target levels of uric acid among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m². “I think we can all agree that getting 30% of our patients to target uric acid is not an acceptable outcome,” she said.

Stamp emphasized the importance of drug availability and noted that allopurinol is also the only medication for gout that is on the World Health Organization list of essential medications. “I think we should be recommending medications that are readily available, irrespective of where you live,” she said, noting that this is true of allopurinol, febuxostat, and probenecid.

Stamp also addressed the mechanism of action of ULTs. “Does the cause of hyperuricemia affect treatment response? I don’t think it does. Most people respond to allopurinol whether they’re a normal excreter or an under-excreter. Everyone who is lacking uricase will respond to allopurinol. Not everyone will respond to a uricosuric [agent], particularly in the setting of comorbidities such as renal impairment, which many of our patients with gout have,” she said.

 

Counterargument: Combine Therapies With Different Mechanisms of Action

In his counterargument, Pérez-Ruiz contended that gout is not in fact a metabolic disease and suggested that combining therapies with different mechanisms of action could be the best approach for difficult-to-treat gout. “The problem we face in clinical practice is how to treat difficult-to-treat patients,” he said. He referenced his own PhD thesis, which showed both high urinary uric acid output and underexcretion among patients with gout.

Pérez-Ruiz agreed that XO inhibitors should be used as first-line therapy but noted that the effect of allopurinol tapers off at higher doses. “If you use very high doses of allopurinol, you cannot expect to get much more effect,” he said. This is also true of febuxostat, he said.

He showed another study that illustrated difficulties in achieving target serum urate level with intensive therapy. “Even using a high dose of allopurinol, if you would like to get lower than 3 mg/dL for intensive therapy, close to 50% of patients will fail,” he said.

Pérez-Ruiz described a strategy of combining XO inhibitors with a uricosuric therapy, creating what he called a “uricase-like effect” on serum uric acid levels. Ruiz-Perez uses high-dose febuxostat in patients with chronic kidney disease who cannot be given uricosuric agents. “You can go to very low [serum urate levels] by raising up the doses,” he said.

He does not believe that allopurinol is the best agent for combination therapy in the treatment of tophaceous deposits. Instead, he favors combinations with febuxostat. He presented his own experience with 12 patients with very severe tophaceous gout who he treated with a combination of febuxostat and benzbromarone, which reduced serum urate to just over 2 mg/dL. “So this is a pegloticase-like effect [that is] very useful for tophaceous gout,” he said.

In her response, Stamp noted that most of the studies presented by Pérez-Ruiz showed XO inhibitors as first-line therapies, with other medications added on. “I think I heard Fernando agree with me. In just about all of those slides, he showed that a xanthine oxidase inhibitor was the first-line therapy, and subsequently a uricosuric was added,” she said.

Still, Stamp took issue with the idea that serum urate needs to get as low as Pérez-Ruiz advocated for. “What’s the risk associated with getting a serum urate to that level? I’m not sure that a sustained serum urate of around 1 [mg/dL] is necessarily good in the long term,” she said.

Stamp also pointed out the potential risks of polypharmacy, along with adherence issues. “If we can give our patients one therapy, one drug that’s going to get them to a target that we know is going to have beneficial long-term effects, that’s going to help improve our adherence. Maybe we are coming to a new era of [treatment, with] remission induction driving the serum urate very low, and then a maintenance therapy where we can back off. But irrespective, if you use that strategy, Fernando nicely showed that every time you’re going to start with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor,” she said.

After the debate, audience members voted again, and this time the result was 66% in favor of XO inhibitors as a first-line treatment.

Pérez-Ruiz is an adviser for Arthrosi, LG, Novartis, Protalix, and SOBI. He is a speaker for Menarini Central America and the Spanish Foundation for Rheumatology and has received funding from Cruces Rheumatology Association. Stamp did not disclose any financial relationships.

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