Latest News

TOPLINE: 

The Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

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 Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

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 Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) biomarker, a 16-gene molecular signature, can help predict locoregional recurrence in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery as well as which patients will benefit most from adjuvant radiotherapy. Overall, patients with a high POLAR score derived a significant benefit from adjuvant radiotherapy, while those with a low score did not and might consider forgoing radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for locoregional recurrence and is a standard approach to manage early breast cancer. However, certain patients with low locoregional recurrence risks may not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation, but there has not been a commercially available molecular test to help identify which patients that might be.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed whether the POLAR biomarker test could reliably predict locoregional recurrence as well as identify patients who would not benefit from radiotherapy.
• The meta-analysis used data from three randomized trials — Scottish Conservation Trial, SweBCG91-RT, and Princess Margaret RT trial — to validate the POLAR biomarker test in patients with low-risk, HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer.
• The analysis included 623 patients (ages 50-76), of whom 429 (69%) had high POLAR scores and 194 (31%) had low POLAR scores.
• The primary endpoint was the time to locoregional recurrence, and secondary endpoints included evaluating POLAR as a prognostic factor for locoregional recurrence in patients without radiotherapy and effect of radiotherapy in patients with low and high POLAR scores.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with high POLAR scores demonstrated a significant benefit from radiotherapy. The 10-year locoregional recurrence rate was 7% with radiotherapy vs 20% without radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001).
• Patients with low POLAR scores, however, did not experience a significant benefit from radiotherapy. In this group, the 10-year locoregional recurrence rates were similar with and without radiotherapy (7% vs 5%, respectively; HR, 0.92; P = .832), indicating that radiotherapy could potentially be omitted for these patients.
• Among patients who did not receive radiotherapy (n = 309), higher POLAR scores predicted a greater risk for recurrence, suggesting the genomic signature has prognostic value. There is no evidence, however, that POLAR predicts radiotherapy benefit or predicts patients’ risk for distant metastases or mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This meta-analysis from three randomized controlled trials clearly demonstrates the clinical potential for POLAR to be used in smaller estrogen receptor positive node negative breast cancer patients to identify those women who do not appear to benefit from the use of post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy,” the authors wrote. “ This classifier is an important step towards molecularly-stratified targeting of the use of radiotherapy.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Per Karlsson, MD, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

LIMITATIONS:

One cohort (SweBCG) had limited use of adjuvant systemic therapy, which could affect generalizability. Additionally, low numbers of patients with low POLAR scores in two trials could affect the observed benefit of radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Institute Fund (Edinburgh and Lothians Health Foundation), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Exact Sciences Corporation, PFS Genomics, Swedish Cancer Society, and Swedish Research Council. One author reported being an employee and owning stock or stock options or patents with Exact Sciences. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources including Exact Sciences.

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.

LAS VEGAS — When patients with rosacea consult Julie C. Harper, MD, about persistent facial erythema, she often recommends brimonidine 0.33% gel or oxymetazoline 1% cream.

These agents “work fast” and “improve redness quickly,” Harper, a dermatologist who practices in Birmingham, Alabama, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference. In addition, “you’re going to know within 30 minutes or an hour whether it’s going to work or not.”

Brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 for persistent facial erythema of rosacea. It does not treat telangiectasia and is not approved for flushing (transient erythema). Patients are advised to apply the gel daily in the morning. In phase 3 pivotal trials of patients with moderate to severe erythema of rosacea, which excluded individuals with more than two papules, a composite (investigator- and patient-reported) 2-grade improvement was seen as early as 30 minutes after application on day 1, and erythema was reduced for 9-12 hours.

Oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha-1a adrenergic receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in 2017 for persistent facial erythema of rosacea. It neither treats telangiectasia nor is approved for flushing. Phase 3 trials of patients with moderate to severe persistent erythema of rosacea excluded individuals with more than three inflammatory papules or pustules. A composite (investigator- and subject-reported) 2-grade improvement was seen as early as 1 hour after application on day 1, and erythema was reduced for 9-12 hours.

 

Receptor Selectivity Differences

According to Harper, there are more reports of worsening erythema with brimonidine 0.33% gel than with oxymetazoline 1% cream, perhaps because of the different receptor selectivity between the two products. She explained that alpha-1 receptors are located only postsynaptically in vascular smooth muscle, while alpha-2 receptors are located presynaptically, which can inhibit norepinephrine and lead to vasodilation. Alpha-2 receptors are also located postsynaptically in vascular smooth muscle and in the endothelial wall, which can mediate nitric oxide release and cause vasodilation.

No head-to-head studies exist that compare brimonidine 0.33% gel with oxymetazoline 1% cream. But in a 52-week study of oxymetazoline 1% cream for persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea published in 2018, at week 52, 36.7% and 43.4% of patients achieved a 2-grade or greater composite improvement from baseline in both Clinician Erythema Assessment and Subject Self-Assessment 3 and 6 hours after a dose, respectively. Also, fewer than 1% of patients experienced a rebound effect following treatment cessation.

“What we learned from this study is that maybe patients do better if they use oxymetazoline 1% cream consistently,” Harper said. “Does that mean that everybody I give this to uses it daily? Probably not, but I think we can change the vascular tone by using it consistently every day.”

 

Oral Beta-Blockers Another Option

Alpha agonists can also help quell flushing associated with rosacea, Harper continued, but oral beta-blockers may be the better choice. In a 2020 review that drew from nine studies, researchers evaluated the use of carvedilol, propranolol, nadolol, and beta-blockers in general for rosacea-associated facial erythema and flushing. Articles studying carvedilol and propranolol showed a large reduction of erythema and flushing during treatment with a rapid onset of symptom control, while bradycardia and hypotension were the most commonly reported adverse events. “All of these agents are studied in rosacea, but none of them are FDA approved for rosacea,” Harper noted.

In a separate study, five patients with rosacea who had either severe frequent flushing episodes or persistent erythema and burning sensations were treated with carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker. Prior treatments included cetirizine and doxycycline, or isotretinoin combined with topical application of metronidazole gel or ivermectin without sufficient improvement in erythema. Carvedilol was added to the above treatments and titrated up to 12.5 mg twice a day and continued for at least 6 months.

The Clinician Erythema Assessment 5-point scale before therapy was 3.4 and dropped to 0.4 during therapy, while the patient self-assessment before therapy was 3.8 and dropped to 0.8 during therapy.

Another study evaluated the use of propranolol and/or doxycycline in 78 patients with rosacea. The propranolol and combination treatment groups showed more rapid improvement at weeks 4 and 8, but there was no statistically significant difference between them by week 12. Rosacea clinical scores also decreased in all groups, but there were no significant differences between them. Reduction of Assessment of Rosacea Clinical Score was 51%, 52.2%, and 57.3% in the propranolol, doxycycline, and combination groups, respectively.

Harper disclosed ties with Almirall, Cutera, Galderma, Journey, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS — When patients with rosacea consult Julie C. Harper, MD, about persistent facial erythema, she often recommends brimonidine 0.33% gel or oxymetazoline 1% cream.

These agents “work fast” and “improve redness quickly,” Harper, a dermatologist who practices in Birmingham, Alabama, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference. In addition, “you’re going to know within 30 minutes or an hour whether it’s going to work or not.”

Brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 for persistent facial erythema of rosacea. It does not treat telangiectasia and is not approved for flushing (transient erythema). Patients are advised to apply the gel daily in the morning. In phase 3 pivotal trials of patients with moderate to severe erythema of rosacea, which excluded individuals with more than two papules, a composite (investigator- and patient-reported) 2-grade improvement was seen as early as 30 minutes after application on day 1, and erythema was reduced for 9-12 hours.

Oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha-1a adrenergic receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in 2017 for persistent facial erythema of rosacea. It neither treats telangiectasia nor is approved for flushing. Phase 3 trials of patients with moderate to severe persistent erythema of rosacea excluded individuals with more than three inflammatory papules or pustules. A composite (investigator- and subject-reported) 2-grade improvement was seen as early as 1 hour after application on day 1, and erythema was reduced for 9-12 hours.

 

Receptor Selectivity Differences

According to Harper, there are more reports of worsening erythema with brimonidine 0.33% gel than with oxymetazoline 1% cream, perhaps because of the different receptor selectivity between the two products. She explained that alpha-1 receptors are located only postsynaptically in vascular smooth muscle, while alpha-2 receptors are located presynaptically, which can inhibit norepinephrine and lead to vasodilation. Alpha-2 receptors are also located postsynaptically in vascular smooth muscle and in the endothelial wall, which can mediate nitric oxide release and cause vasodilation.

No head-to-head studies exist that compare brimonidine 0.33% gel with oxymetazoline 1% cream. But in a 52-week study of oxymetazoline 1% cream for persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea published in 2018, at week 52, 36.7% and 43.4% of patients achieved a 2-grade or greater composite improvement from baseline in both Clinician Erythema Assessment and Subject Self-Assessment 3 and 6 hours after a dose, respectively. Also, fewer than 1% of patients experienced a rebound effect following treatment cessation.

“What we learned from this study is that maybe patients do better if they use oxymetazoline 1% cream consistently,” Harper said. “Does that mean that everybody I give this to uses it daily? Probably not, but I think we can change the vascular tone by using it consistently every day.”

 

Oral Beta-Blockers Another Option

Alpha agonists can also help quell flushing associated with rosacea, Harper continued, but oral beta-blockers may be the better choice. In a 2020 review that drew from nine studies, researchers evaluated the use of carvedilol, propranolol, nadolol, and beta-blockers in general for rosacea-associated facial erythema and flushing. Articles studying carvedilol and propranolol showed a large reduction of erythema and flushing during treatment with a rapid onset of symptom control, while bradycardia and hypotension were the most commonly reported adverse events. “All of these agents are studied in rosacea, but none of them are FDA approved for rosacea,” Harper noted.

In a separate study, five patients with rosacea who had either severe frequent flushing episodes or persistent erythema and burning sensations were treated with carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker. Prior treatments included cetirizine and doxycycline, or isotretinoin combined with topical application of metronidazole gel or ivermectin without sufficient improvement in erythema. Carvedilol was added to the above treatments and titrated up to 12.5 mg twice a day and continued for at least 6 months.

The Clinician Erythema Assessment 5-point scale before therapy was 3.4 and dropped to 0.4 during therapy, while the patient self-assessment before therapy was 3.8 and dropped to 0.8 during therapy.

Another study evaluated the use of propranolol and/or doxycycline in 78 patients with rosacea. The propranolol and combination treatment groups showed more rapid improvement at weeks 4 and 8, but there was no statistically significant difference between them by week 12. Rosacea clinical scores also decreased in all groups, but there were no significant differences between them. Reduction of Assessment of Rosacea Clinical Score was 51%, 52.2%, and 57.3% in the propranolol, doxycycline, and combination groups, respectively.

Harper disclosed ties with Almirall, Cutera, Galderma, Journey, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS — When patients with rosacea consult Julie C. Harper, MD, about persistent facial erythema, she often recommends brimonidine 0.33% gel or oxymetazoline 1% cream.

These agents “work fast” and “improve redness quickly,” Harper, a dermatologist who practices in Birmingham, Alabama, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference. In addition, “you’re going to know within 30 minutes or an hour whether it’s going to work or not.”

Brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 for persistent facial erythema of rosacea. It does not treat telangiectasia and is not approved for flushing (transient erythema). Patients are advised to apply the gel daily in the morning. In phase 3 pivotal trials of patients with moderate to severe erythema of rosacea, which excluded individuals with more than two papules, a composite (investigator- and patient-reported) 2-grade improvement was seen as early as 30 minutes after application on day 1, and erythema was reduced for 9-12 hours.

Oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha-1a adrenergic receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in 2017 for persistent facial erythema of rosacea. It neither treats telangiectasia nor is approved for flushing. Phase 3 trials of patients with moderate to severe persistent erythema of rosacea excluded individuals with more than three inflammatory papules or pustules. A composite (investigator- and subject-reported) 2-grade improvement was seen as early as 1 hour after application on day 1, and erythema was reduced for 9-12 hours.

 

Receptor Selectivity Differences

According to Harper, there are more reports of worsening erythema with brimonidine 0.33% gel than with oxymetazoline 1% cream, perhaps because of the different receptor selectivity between the two products. She explained that alpha-1 receptors are located only postsynaptically in vascular smooth muscle, while alpha-2 receptors are located presynaptically, which can inhibit norepinephrine and lead to vasodilation. Alpha-2 receptors are also located postsynaptically in vascular smooth muscle and in the endothelial wall, which can mediate nitric oxide release and cause vasodilation.

No head-to-head studies exist that compare brimonidine 0.33% gel with oxymetazoline 1% cream. But in a 52-week study of oxymetazoline 1% cream for persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea published in 2018, at week 52, 36.7% and 43.4% of patients achieved a 2-grade or greater composite improvement from baseline in both Clinician Erythema Assessment and Subject Self-Assessment 3 and 6 hours after a dose, respectively. Also, fewer than 1% of patients experienced a rebound effect following treatment cessation.

“What we learned from this study is that maybe patients do better if they use oxymetazoline 1% cream consistently,” Harper said. “Does that mean that everybody I give this to uses it daily? Probably not, but I think we can change the vascular tone by using it consistently every day.”

 

Oral Beta-Blockers Another Option

Alpha agonists can also help quell flushing associated with rosacea, Harper continued, but oral beta-blockers may be the better choice. In a 2020 review that drew from nine studies, researchers evaluated the use of carvedilol, propranolol, nadolol, and beta-blockers in general for rosacea-associated facial erythema and flushing. Articles studying carvedilol and propranolol showed a large reduction of erythema and flushing during treatment with a rapid onset of symptom control, while bradycardia and hypotension were the most commonly reported adverse events. “All of these agents are studied in rosacea, but none of them are FDA approved for rosacea,” Harper noted.

In a separate study, five patients with rosacea who had either severe frequent flushing episodes or persistent erythema and burning sensations were treated with carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker. Prior treatments included cetirizine and doxycycline, or isotretinoin combined with topical application of metronidazole gel or ivermectin without sufficient improvement in erythema. Carvedilol was added to the above treatments and titrated up to 12.5 mg twice a day and continued for at least 6 months.

The Clinician Erythema Assessment 5-point scale before therapy was 3.4 and dropped to 0.4 during therapy, while the patient self-assessment before therapy was 3.8 and dropped to 0.8 during therapy.

Another study evaluated the use of propranolol and/or doxycycline in 78 patients with rosacea. The propranolol and combination treatment groups showed more rapid improvement at weeks 4 and 8, but there was no statistically significant difference between them by week 12. Rosacea clinical scores also decreased in all groups, but there were no significant differences between them. Reduction of Assessment of Rosacea Clinical Score was 51%, 52.2%, and 57.3% in the propranolol, doxycycline, and combination groups, respectively.

Harper disclosed ties with Almirall, Cutera, Galderma, Journey, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with stages I-III screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have better disease-free survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, an effect that was independent of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with screen-detected CRC have better stage-specific overall survival rates than those with non-screen–detected CRC, but the impact of screening on recurrence rates is unknown.
• A retrospective study analyzed patients with CRC (age, 55-75 years) from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed by screening or not.
• Screen-detected CRC were identified in patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas non-screen–detected CRC were those that were detected in symptomatic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3725 patients with CRC (39.6% women), of which 1652 (44.3%) and 2073 (55.7%) patients had screen-detected and non-screen–detected CRC, respectively; CRC was distributed approximately evenly across stages I-III (35.3%, 27.1%, and 37.6%, respectively).
• Screen-detected CRC had significantly higher 3-year rates of disease-free survival compared with non-screen–detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001).
• The improvement in disease-free survival rates for screen-detected CRC was particularly notable in stage III cases, with rates of 77.9% vs 66.7% for non-screen–detected CRC (P < .001).
• Screen-detected CRC was more often detected at an earlier stage than non-screen–detected CRC (stage I or II: 72.4% vs 54.4%; P < .001).
• Across all stages, detection of CRC by screening was associated with a 33% lower risk for recurrence (P < .001) independent of patient age, gender, tumor location, stage, and treatment.
• Recurrence was the strongest predictor of overall survival across the study population (hazard ratio, 15.90; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Apart from CRC stage, mode of detection could be used to assess an individual’s risk for recurrence and survival, which may contribute to a more personalized treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sanne J.K.F. Pluimers, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center/Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The follow-up time was relatively short, restricting the ability to evaluate the long-term effects of screening on CRC recurrence. This study focused on recurrence solely within the FIT-based screening program, and the results were not generalizable to other screening methods. Due to Dutch privacy law, data on CRC-specific causes of death were unavailable, which may have affected the specificity of survival outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no funding source for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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 increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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 increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

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

The persistent epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is showing signs of a slowdown in cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 2.4 million cases of these three nationally notifiable STIs were reported in the United States in 2023 but represent a 1.8% decrease from 2022, based on a new CDC report, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, 2023.

The 2023 report indicates a 7.2% decrease in gonorrhea, which accounts for most of the decrease.

Although syphilis cases increased overall, they did so by only 1% compared with double-digit increases in previous years, according to the report. Primary and secondary syphilis decreased by 10%, compared with 2022 overall, with a 13% decrease in cases among gay and bisexual men.

Congenital syphilis rates increased by 3%. However, the 3% increase represents a significant drop from the 30% increases each year in recent years, according to the report.

Chlamydia rates remained essentially stable, with a decrease of less than 1.0% overall. Reported chlamydia rates increased by 1.3% among men and decreased by 1.7% among women.

Despite the declines, overall disparities persist, with higher rates of STIs among gay and bisexual men, as well as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the report.

 

CDC Cautiously Optimistic

The CDC is “guardedly optimistic that the new data represent a turning point in terms of syphilis and gonorrhea,” said Bradley Stoner, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, in an interview.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, notably in addressing disparities in care, said Stoner.

New techniques for diagnosis and treatment, such as the increased use of doxycycline (doxy PEP) for the prevention of STIs after sex for high-risk populations with a history of STIs, are likely contributing to the overall decrease, Stoner said. Other contributing factors include improved communication and awareness of STI treatment options at the community level in emergency departments, substance use facilities, and syringe use programs.

Although the United States has not yet turned the corner in reducing STIs, “We are at an inflection point in the epidemic after years of increases,” Stoner told this news organization. “The CDC is committed to keeping the momentum going and turning things around.” Although congenital syphilis rates are slowing down, it remains a significant problem with severe outcomes for mothers and infants, he noted.

The message to healthcare providers on the front lines is to increase awareness, screen widely, and provide effective treatments, Stoner emphasized.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to identify the settings in which prevention tools can be best utilized, such as urgent care or other programs, said Stoner. “My hope is that implementation science research will give us some clues.” In addition, better tools for detection and treatment of STIs are always needed, notably better diagnostics for syphilis, which still requires a blood test, although research is underway for more efficient testing.

 

Spotlight on Disparities, Syphilis

“I think these are very nuanced results,” said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, in an interview. “I am happy, on first pass, to see that STI rates have declined.” However, a closer look reveals that most of the improvements are driven by the 7% drop in gonorrhea, while chlamydia and syphilis rates are relatively stable.

The decreases may reflect that the public is receiving the messaging about the need for screening and safer sex. “Clinicians also have been educated on the need for screening,” Cennimo said. However, “we are still 90% above the [STI] rates from 20 years ago.”

Clinicians also must recognize the disparities in STI rates by race and other demographics, Cennimo said. The current report “is a call to make sure that STI and other medical services are targeted to specific groups as needed and are widely available, especially in under-resourced areas.”

“I am still dismayed by the high syphilis rates, which are also resulting in congenital syphilis,” Cennimo said. “Syphilis in pregnancy is very dangerous, and any case of congenital syphilis is a failure of preventive care and screening; it is a potentially devastating disease.

“We have good treatments for STIs, but we must continue to monitor for resistance,” said Cennimo. “More work is needed to reach high-risk individuals and to provide preventive care and screening.” 

The research was supported by the CDC. Stoner and Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The persistent epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is showing signs of a slowdown in cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 2.4 million cases of these three nationally notifiable STIs were reported in the United States in 2023 but represent a 1.8% decrease from 2022, based on a new CDC report, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, 2023.

The 2023 report indicates a 7.2% decrease in gonorrhea, which accounts for most of the decrease.

Although syphilis cases increased overall, they did so by only 1% compared with double-digit increases in previous years, according to the report. Primary and secondary syphilis decreased by 10%, compared with 2022 overall, with a 13% decrease in cases among gay and bisexual men.

Congenital syphilis rates increased by 3%. However, the 3% increase represents a significant drop from the 30% increases each year in recent years, according to the report.

Chlamydia rates remained essentially stable, with a decrease of less than 1.0% overall. Reported chlamydia rates increased by 1.3% among men and decreased by 1.7% among women.

Despite the declines, overall disparities persist, with higher rates of STIs among gay and bisexual men, as well as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the report.

 

CDC Cautiously Optimistic

The CDC is “guardedly optimistic that the new data represent a turning point in terms of syphilis and gonorrhea,” said Bradley Stoner, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, in an interview.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, notably in addressing disparities in care, said Stoner.

New techniques for diagnosis and treatment, such as the increased use of doxycycline (doxy PEP) for the prevention of STIs after sex for high-risk populations with a history of STIs, are likely contributing to the overall decrease, Stoner said. Other contributing factors include improved communication and awareness of STI treatment options at the community level in emergency departments, substance use facilities, and syringe use programs.

Although the United States has not yet turned the corner in reducing STIs, “We are at an inflection point in the epidemic after years of increases,” Stoner told this news organization. “The CDC is committed to keeping the momentum going and turning things around.” Although congenital syphilis rates are slowing down, it remains a significant problem with severe outcomes for mothers and infants, he noted.

The message to healthcare providers on the front lines is to increase awareness, screen widely, and provide effective treatments, Stoner emphasized.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to identify the settings in which prevention tools can be best utilized, such as urgent care or other programs, said Stoner. “My hope is that implementation science research will give us some clues.” In addition, better tools for detection and treatment of STIs are always needed, notably better diagnostics for syphilis, which still requires a blood test, although research is underway for more efficient testing.

 

Spotlight on Disparities, Syphilis

“I think these are very nuanced results,” said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, in an interview. “I am happy, on first pass, to see that STI rates have declined.” However, a closer look reveals that most of the improvements are driven by the 7% drop in gonorrhea, while chlamydia and syphilis rates are relatively stable.

The decreases may reflect that the public is receiving the messaging about the need for screening and safer sex. “Clinicians also have been educated on the need for screening,” Cennimo said. However, “we are still 90% above the [STI] rates from 20 years ago.”

Clinicians also must recognize the disparities in STI rates by race and other demographics, Cennimo said. The current report “is a call to make sure that STI and other medical services are targeted to specific groups as needed and are widely available, especially in under-resourced areas.”

“I am still dismayed by the high syphilis rates, which are also resulting in congenital syphilis,” Cennimo said. “Syphilis in pregnancy is very dangerous, and any case of congenital syphilis is a failure of preventive care and screening; it is a potentially devastating disease.

“We have good treatments for STIs, but we must continue to monitor for resistance,” said Cennimo. “More work is needed to reach high-risk individuals and to provide preventive care and screening.” 

The research was supported by the CDC. Stoner and Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The persistent epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States is showing signs of a slowdown in cases of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More than 2.4 million cases of these three nationally notifiable STIs were reported in the United States in 2023 but represent a 1.8% decrease from 2022, based on a new CDC report, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, 2023.

The 2023 report indicates a 7.2% decrease in gonorrhea, which accounts for most of the decrease.

Although syphilis cases increased overall, they did so by only 1% compared with double-digit increases in previous years, according to the report. Primary and secondary syphilis decreased by 10%, compared with 2022 overall, with a 13% decrease in cases among gay and bisexual men.

Congenital syphilis rates increased by 3%. However, the 3% increase represents a significant drop from the 30% increases each year in recent years, according to the report.

Chlamydia rates remained essentially stable, with a decrease of less than 1.0% overall. Reported chlamydia rates increased by 1.3% among men and decreased by 1.7% among women.

Despite the declines, overall disparities persist, with higher rates of STIs among gay and bisexual men, as well as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the report.

 

CDC Cautiously Optimistic

The CDC is “guardedly optimistic that the new data represent a turning point in terms of syphilis and gonorrhea,” said Bradley Stoner, MD, director of the CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, in an interview.

However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, notably in addressing disparities in care, said Stoner.

New techniques for diagnosis and treatment, such as the increased use of doxycycline (doxy PEP) for the prevention of STIs after sex for high-risk populations with a history of STIs, are likely contributing to the overall decrease, Stoner said. Other contributing factors include improved communication and awareness of STI treatment options at the community level in emergency departments, substance use facilities, and syringe use programs.

Although the United States has not yet turned the corner in reducing STIs, “We are at an inflection point in the epidemic after years of increases,” Stoner told this news organization. “The CDC is committed to keeping the momentum going and turning things around.” Although congenital syphilis rates are slowing down, it remains a significant problem with severe outcomes for mothers and infants, he noted.

The message to healthcare providers on the front lines is to increase awareness, screen widely, and provide effective treatments, Stoner emphasized.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to identify the settings in which prevention tools can be best utilized, such as urgent care or other programs, said Stoner. “My hope is that implementation science research will give us some clues.” In addition, better tools for detection and treatment of STIs are always needed, notably better diagnostics for syphilis, which still requires a blood test, although research is underway for more efficient testing.

 

Spotlight on Disparities, Syphilis

“I think these are very nuanced results,” said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, in an interview. “I am happy, on first pass, to see that STI rates have declined.” However, a closer look reveals that most of the improvements are driven by the 7% drop in gonorrhea, while chlamydia and syphilis rates are relatively stable.

The decreases may reflect that the public is receiving the messaging about the need for screening and safer sex. “Clinicians also have been educated on the need for screening,” Cennimo said. However, “we are still 90% above the [STI] rates from 20 years ago.”

Clinicians also must recognize the disparities in STI rates by race and other demographics, Cennimo said. The current report “is a call to make sure that STI and other medical services are targeted to specific groups as needed and are widely available, especially in under-resourced areas.”

“I am still dismayed by the high syphilis rates, which are also resulting in congenital syphilis,” Cennimo said. “Syphilis in pregnancy is very dangerous, and any case of congenital syphilis is a failure of preventive care and screening; it is a potentially devastating disease.

“We have good treatments for STIs, but we must continue to monitor for resistance,” said Cennimo. “More work is needed to reach high-risk individuals and to provide preventive care and screening.” 

The research was supported by the CDC. Stoner and Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The principle of parsimony, often referred to as “Occam’s razor,” favors a unifying explanation over multiple ones, as long as both explain the data equally well. This heuristic, widely used in medical practice, advocates for simpler explanations rather than complex theories. However, its application in modern medicine has sparked debate.

“Hickam’s dictum,” a counterargument to Occam’s razor, asserts that patients — especially as populations grow older and more fragile — can simultaneously have multiple, unrelated diagnoses. These contrasting perspectives on clinical reasoning, balancing diagnostic simplicity and complexity, are both used in daily medical practice.

But are these two axioms truly in conflict, or is this a false dichotomy?

 

Occam’s Razor and Simple Diagnoses

Interpersonal variability in diagnostic approaches, shaped by the subjective nature of many judgments, complicates the formal evaluation of diagnostic parsimony (Occam’s razor). Indirect evidence suggests that prioritizing simplicity in diagnosis can result in under-detection of secondary conditions, particularly in patients with chronic illnesses.

For example, older patients with a known chronic illness were found to have a 30%-60% lower likelihood of being treated for an unrelated secondary diagnosis than matched peers without the chronic condition. Other studies indicate that a readily available, simple diagnosis can lead clinicians to prematurely close their diagnostic reasoning, overlooking other significant illnesses.

 

Beyond Hickam’s Dictum and Occam’s Razor

A recent study explored the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses by examining the supposed conflict between Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor, as well as the ambiguities in how they are interpreted and used by physicians in clinical reasoning.

Part 1: Researchers identified articles on PubMed related to Hickam’s dictum or conflicting with Occam’s razor, categorizing instances into four models of Hickam’s dictum:

1. Incidentaloma: An asymptomatic condition discovered accidentally.

2. Preexisting diagnosis: A known condition in the patient’s medical history.

3. Causally related disease: A complication, association, epiphenomenon, or underlying cause connected to the primary diagnosis.

4. Coincidental and independent disease: A symptomatic condition unrelated to the primary diagnosis.

Part 2: Researchers analyzed 220 case records from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and clinical problem-solving reports published in The New England Journal of Medicine between 2017 and 2023. They found no cases where the final diagnosis was not a unifying one.

Part 3: In an online survey of 265 physicians, 79% identified coincidental symptomatic conditions (category 4) as the least likely type of multiple diagnoses. Preexisting conditions (category 2) emerged as the most common, reflecting the tendency to add new diagnoses to a patient’s existing health profile. Almost one third of instances referencing Hickam’s dictum or violations of Occam’s razor fell into category 2.

Causally related diseases (category 3) were probabilistically dependent, meaning that the presence of one condition increased the likelihood of the other, based on the strength (often unknown) of the causal relationship.

 

Practical Insights

The significant finding of this work was that multiple diagnoses occur in predictable patterns, informed by causal connections between conditions, symptom onset timing, and likelihood. The principle of common causation supports the search for a unifying diagnosis for coincidental symptoms. It is not surprising that causally related phenomena often co-occur, as reflected by the fact that 40% of multiple diagnoses in the study’s first part were causally linked.

Thus, understanding multiple diagnoses goes beyond Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor. It requires not only identifying diseases but also examining their causal relationships and the timing of symptom onset. A unifying diagnosis is not equivalent to a single diagnosis; rather, it represents a causal pathway linking underlying pathologic changes to acute presentations.

 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

The principle of parsimony, often referred to as “Occam’s razor,” favors a unifying explanation over multiple ones, as long as both explain the data equally well. This heuristic, widely used in medical practice, advocates for simpler explanations rather than complex theories. However, its application in modern medicine has sparked debate.

“Hickam’s dictum,” a counterargument to Occam’s razor, asserts that patients — especially as populations grow older and more fragile — can simultaneously have multiple, unrelated diagnoses. These contrasting perspectives on clinical reasoning, balancing diagnostic simplicity and complexity, are both used in daily medical practice.

But are these two axioms truly in conflict, or is this a false dichotomy?

 

Occam’s Razor and Simple Diagnoses

Interpersonal variability in diagnostic approaches, shaped by the subjective nature of many judgments, complicates the formal evaluation of diagnostic parsimony (Occam’s razor). Indirect evidence suggests that prioritizing simplicity in diagnosis can result in under-detection of secondary conditions, particularly in patients with chronic illnesses.

For example, older patients with a known chronic illness were found to have a 30%-60% lower likelihood of being treated for an unrelated secondary diagnosis than matched peers without the chronic condition. Other studies indicate that a readily available, simple diagnosis can lead clinicians to prematurely close their diagnostic reasoning, overlooking other significant illnesses.

 

Beyond Hickam’s Dictum and Occam’s Razor

A recent study explored the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses by examining the supposed conflict between Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor, as well as the ambiguities in how they are interpreted and used by physicians in clinical reasoning.

Part 1: Researchers identified articles on PubMed related to Hickam’s dictum or conflicting with Occam’s razor, categorizing instances into four models of Hickam’s dictum:

1. Incidentaloma: An asymptomatic condition discovered accidentally.

2. Preexisting diagnosis: A known condition in the patient’s medical history.

3. Causally related disease: A complication, association, epiphenomenon, or underlying cause connected to the primary diagnosis.

4. Coincidental and independent disease: A symptomatic condition unrelated to the primary diagnosis.

Part 2: Researchers analyzed 220 case records from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and clinical problem-solving reports published in The New England Journal of Medicine between 2017 and 2023. They found no cases where the final diagnosis was not a unifying one.

Part 3: In an online survey of 265 physicians, 79% identified coincidental symptomatic conditions (category 4) as the least likely type of multiple diagnoses. Preexisting conditions (category 2) emerged as the most common, reflecting the tendency to add new diagnoses to a patient’s existing health profile. Almost one third of instances referencing Hickam’s dictum or violations of Occam’s razor fell into category 2.

Causally related diseases (category 3) were probabilistically dependent, meaning that the presence of one condition increased the likelihood of the other, based on the strength (often unknown) of the causal relationship.

 

Practical Insights

The significant finding of this work was that multiple diagnoses occur in predictable patterns, informed by causal connections between conditions, symptom onset timing, and likelihood. The principle of common causation supports the search for a unifying diagnosis for coincidental symptoms. It is not surprising that causally related phenomena often co-occur, as reflected by the fact that 40% of multiple diagnoses in the study’s first part were causally linked.

Thus, understanding multiple diagnoses goes beyond Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor. It requires not only identifying diseases but also examining their causal relationships and the timing of symptom onset. A unifying diagnosis is not equivalent to a single diagnosis; rather, it represents a causal pathway linking underlying pathologic changes to acute presentations.

 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

The principle of parsimony, often referred to as “Occam’s razor,” favors a unifying explanation over multiple ones, as long as both explain the data equally well. This heuristic, widely used in medical practice, advocates for simpler explanations rather than complex theories. However, its application in modern medicine has sparked debate.

“Hickam’s dictum,” a counterargument to Occam’s razor, asserts that patients — especially as populations grow older and more fragile — can simultaneously have multiple, unrelated diagnoses. These contrasting perspectives on clinical reasoning, balancing diagnostic simplicity and complexity, are both used in daily medical practice.

But are these two axioms truly in conflict, or is this a false dichotomy?

 

Occam’s Razor and Simple Diagnoses

Interpersonal variability in diagnostic approaches, shaped by the subjective nature of many judgments, complicates the formal evaluation of diagnostic parsimony (Occam’s razor). Indirect evidence suggests that prioritizing simplicity in diagnosis can result in under-detection of secondary conditions, particularly in patients with chronic illnesses.

For example, older patients with a known chronic illness were found to have a 30%-60% lower likelihood of being treated for an unrelated secondary diagnosis than matched peers without the chronic condition. Other studies indicate that a readily available, simple diagnosis can lead clinicians to prematurely close their diagnostic reasoning, overlooking other significant illnesses.

 

Beyond Hickam’s Dictum and Occam’s Razor

A recent study explored the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses by examining the supposed conflict between Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor, as well as the ambiguities in how they are interpreted and used by physicians in clinical reasoning.

Part 1: Researchers identified articles on PubMed related to Hickam’s dictum or conflicting with Occam’s razor, categorizing instances into four models of Hickam’s dictum:

1. Incidentaloma: An asymptomatic condition discovered accidentally.

2. Preexisting diagnosis: A known condition in the patient’s medical history.

3. Causally related disease: A complication, association, epiphenomenon, or underlying cause connected to the primary diagnosis.

4. Coincidental and independent disease: A symptomatic condition unrelated to the primary diagnosis.

Part 2: Researchers analyzed 220 case records from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and clinical problem-solving reports published in The New England Journal of Medicine between 2017 and 2023. They found no cases where the final diagnosis was not a unifying one.

Part 3: In an online survey of 265 physicians, 79% identified coincidental symptomatic conditions (category 4) as the least likely type of multiple diagnoses. Preexisting conditions (category 2) emerged as the most common, reflecting the tendency to add new diagnoses to a patient’s existing health profile. Almost one third of instances referencing Hickam’s dictum or violations of Occam’s razor fell into category 2.

Causally related diseases (category 3) were probabilistically dependent, meaning that the presence of one condition increased the likelihood of the other, based on the strength (often unknown) of the causal relationship.

 

Practical Insights

The significant finding of this work was that multiple diagnoses occur in predictable patterns, informed by causal connections between conditions, symptom onset timing, and likelihood. The principle of common causation supports the search for a unifying diagnosis for coincidental symptoms. It is not surprising that causally related phenomena often co-occur, as reflected by the fact that 40% of multiple diagnoses in the study’s first part were causally linked.

Thus, understanding multiple diagnoses goes beyond Hickam’s dictum and Occam’s razor. It requires not only identifying diseases but also examining their causal relationships and the timing of symptom onset. A unifying diagnosis is not equivalent to a single diagnosis; rather, it represents a causal pathway linking underlying pathologic changes to acute presentations.

 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

The causes of shoulder pain may be as common as a traumatic injury or as rare as a systemic inflammatory condition, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The combination of joints, tendons, and muscles that make up the shoulder can present diagnostic and clinical challenges, but several experts shared their tips for management.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Rotator cuff tendinopathy/tendinitis and subacromial bursitis are typically the most common causes of shoulder pain presenting to a primary care provider, said Jason Kolfenbach, MD, a rheumatologist at UC Health, Denver, Colorado, in an interview. “Other causes of shoulder pain may include acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, biceps tendinitis (often a secondary process in the setting of rotator cuff disease), and true glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis,” he said.

Experts estimate that as much as 80% of shoulder pain involves the muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint, rather than true arthritis, said Kolfenbach, who was a co-author of a Medscape slideshow on evaluating shoulder pain. In the slideshow, the authors noted that proper evaluation is needed for successful pain management. Some patients may do well with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), rest, ice, and physical therapy, but more serious conditions may require steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or surgery.

If a patient’s joint pain with active range of motion is relieved when an examiner supports the affected limb (passive range of motion), the cause is more likely related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments, Kolfenbach said.

Primary care providers may not be familiar with examination maneuvers to diagnose shoulder pain, although they are often tasked with evaluating and managing these patients, said Kolfenbach.

Education focused on practical aspects of these maneuvers may help improve primary care confidence in utilizing them and lead to more appropriate ordering of imaging testing and better pain management plans for patients, he said.

However, “If there is concern for a true intra-articular process, plain radiographs are recommended to determine if there is loss of cartilage space and/or other anatomic drivers of pain,” he noted. “Even in conditions of documented intra-articular arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, weakness, and atrophy of the surrounding musculature can contribute to joint disability and pain,” he said. For these patients, referral to physical therapy for periarticular strengthening can provide pain relief, he added.

 

Pinning Down the Pain Point

The many different structures within the shoulder that can cause pain make diagnosis a challenge, Nicole Angelo, DO, MS, a physiatrist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, said in an interview.

Potential sources of pain include the joint of the shoulder itself, the structures within it (labrum, capsule, and ligaments), and the surrounding rotator cuff muscles and tendons, she said. Patients also may experience overlapping pain referred from the neck (cervical spine) related to nerve irritation (cervical radiculopathy) or arthritis, she noted.

“A patient’s history, including mechanism and acuity of injury, as well as exam, specifically weakness in certain movements,” can help determine whether advanced imaging and surgical intervention may be required,” Angelo told this news organization.

Frozen shoulder is the most missed diagnosis of shoulder pain in primary care, Brian Feeley, MD, chief of sports medicine and shoulder surgery at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

Frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis, can mimic many other conditions including rotator cuff problems, shoulder arthritis, and biceps problems, Feeley said. “When people have a loss of active and passive range of motion and no evidence of arthritis on x-rays, their diagnosis is most likely frozen shoulder,” he said.

Another challenge for primary care providers is identifying the severity of rotator cuff problems, Feeley said. “I like to think of rotator cuff problems along a spectrum — impingement is inflammation above the rotator cuff and suggests an imbalance between rotator cuff strength and deltoid strength,” said Feeley. “Partial thickness tears are often normal age-related problems but can be a source of pain,” he added.

However, full-thickness tears encompass a range of problems, from very small asymptomatic holes in the rotator cuff to massive tears that require shoulder replacement, Feeley explained. “Tendinopathy, or changes in the collagen organization in the tendon of the rotator cuff, sounds problematic, but most often is either incidental or part of aging,” he added.

 

When Shoulder Pain Isn’t Caused by the Shoulder

Primary care patients presenting with shoulder pain may in fact have a neck or spine problem instead, Feeley told this news organization. “Pain that is in the shoulder blade area or down the arm and into the fingers is usually coming from the neck/cervical spine,” he said.

In some cases, shoulder pain stems from the joints below the shoulder, including the elbow, because of arthritis, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylopathy), or golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylopathy), said Angelo. “Conditions of the elbow and neck can also affect shoulder mechanics or cause someone to use the joint more or less frequently,” she said. The interconnections between the neck and joints of the upper extremity, including referral patterns, complicate the diagnosis of shoulder pain; therefore, careful history-taking and examination of joints both above and below the shoulder are essential, she added.

 

Conservative Care

Shoulder problems often can be managed conservatively with therapeutic exercise focused on maintaining range of motion of the shoulder and strengthening the musculature around the shoulder, Angelo said. “Often, working with a physical therapist to address the mechanics of how the shoulder is moving and how the muscles are firing can help decrease pain and help patients meet their functional goals,” said Angelo. “Injections into the joint, the bursa adjacent to the rotator cuff, and, at times, into the tendons themselves can also be beneficial in relieving pain and improving function,” she said.

In some cases, a short, consistent course of anti-inflammatory medications can be part of a conservative strategy for the management of shoulder pain, Angelo noted.

“Utilizing these medications on an as-needed basis can also help patients improve their ability to sleep, perform their daily activities, and participate in physical therapy,” she said. A course of physical therapy that promotes maintaining shoulder range of motion, strengthening of the rotator cuff musculature, and working on the mechanics between the scapula and humerus is a good first step for most shoulder conditions, Angelo told this news organization.

“If there is concern due to recent trauma, significant weakness, or new/persistent numbness, referral to a specialist should be considered,” she said. If conservative measures including analgesics and exercise have failed to improve shoulder pain, advanced imaging and further interventional treatment may be necessary, Angelo added.

Most shoulder problems can and should be managed nonoperatively, Feeley said. Surgery should be reserved for patients whose shoulder pain has not improved with nonoperative care in most situations, he said. “It is often surprising for patients to hear, but most things in the shoulder actually get better without surgery, and changes on MRI are often normal for age,” Feeley noted. For example, more than 80% of individuals older than 50 will show signs of a labral tear or arthritis in the acromioclavicular joint, he said. “These are incidental findings that don’t need treatment,” he added.

More research is needed to develop more medications to manage pain for all musculoskeletal conditions, including shoulder pain, said Feeley. “But for now, for patients with shoulder pain, I tend to recommend a combination of Tylenol and an NSAID to improve inflammation and reduce pain, and a guided [physical] therapy program at home or in person. The combination of both usually will be successful,” he said.

 

Postsurgical Shoulder Pain

“For patients who have shoulder surgery, the techniques to manage pain around surgery have improved tremendously over the last decade, particularly with multimodal pain management and nerve blocks,” Feeley told this news organization. These advances have tremendously reduced the need for narcotics for pain management beyond the first 72 hours after surgery, he said. “I strongly recommend patients and primary care doctors to stop all narcotics as soon as possible after shoulder surgery, since they are not nearly as effective for management of pain after the first few days, and they should never be used as a sleep aid,” he emphasized.

Managing pain during recovery from shoulder surgery also involves about 6 weeks in a sling to protect the repair, followed by 6 weeks of active motion but no strengthening, then 3 months of strengthening exercises, he said.

Shoulder pain resources for patients: https://www.hss.edu/condition-list_shoulder-pain-causes.asp

Feeley’s 10-minute video on shoulder examination and pain assessment at the UCSF 14th Annual Primary Care Sports Medicine Conference, 2019: Video on the Essential Shoulder Exam

Kolfenbach disclosed receiving royalties from Elsevier for being the editor of Rheumatology Secrets and Wolters Kluwer for authoring several articles on UpToDate. Feeley and Angelo had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The causes of shoulder pain may be as common as a traumatic injury or as rare as a systemic inflammatory condition, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The combination of joints, tendons, and muscles that make up the shoulder can present diagnostic and clinical challenges, but several experts shared their tips for management.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Rotator cuff tendinopathy/tendinitis and subacromial bursitis are typically the most common causes of shoulder pain presenting to a primary care provider, said Jason Kolfenbach, MD, a rheumatologist at UC Health, Denver, Colorado, in an interview. “Other causes of shoulder pain may include acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, biceps tendinitis (often a secondary process in the setting of rotator cuff disease), and true glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis,” he said.

Experts estimate that as much as 80% of shoulder pain involves the muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint, rather than true arthritis, said Kolfenbach, who was a co-author of a Medscape slideshow on evaluating shoulder pain. In the slideshow, the authors noted that proper evaluation is needed for successful pain management. Some patients may do well with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), rest, ice, and physical therapy, but more serious conditions may require steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or surgery.

If a patient’s joint pain with active range of motion is relieved when an examiner supports the affected limb (passive range of motion), the cause is more likely related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments, Kolfenbach said.

Primary care providers may not be familiar with examination maneuvers to diagnose shoulder pain, although they are often tasked with evaluating and managing these patients, said Kolfenbach.

Education focused on practical aspects of these maneuvers may help improve primary care confidence in utilizing them and lead to more appropriate ordering of imaging testing and better pain management plans for patients, he said.

However, “If there is concern for a true intra-articular process, plain radiographs are recommended to determine if there is loss of cartilage space and/or other anatomic drivers of pain,” he noted. “Even in conditions of documented intra-articular arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, weakness, and atrophy of the surrounding musculature can contribute to joint disability and pain,” he said. For these patients, referral to physical therapy for periarticular strengthening can provide pain relief, he added.

 

Pinning Down the Pain Point

The many different structures within the shoulder that can cause pain make diagnosis a challenge, Nicole Angelo, DO, MS, a physiatrist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, said in an interview.

Potential sources of pain include the joint of the shoulder itself, the structures within it (labrum, capsule, and ligaments), and the surrounding rotator cuff muscles and tendons, she said. Patients also may experience overlapping pain referred from the neck (cervical spine) related to nerve irritation (cervical radiculopathy) or arthritis, she noted.

“A patient’s history, including mechanism and acuity of injury, as well as exam, specifically weakness in certain movements,” can help determine whether advanced imaging and surgical intervention may be required,” Angelo told this news organization.

Frozen shoulder is the most missed diagnosis of shoulder pain in primary care, Brian Feeley, MD, chief of sports medicine and shoulder surgery at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

Frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis, can mimic many other conditions including rotator cuff problems, shoulder arthritis, and biceps problems, Feeley said. “When people have a loss of active and passive range of motion and no evidence of arthritis on x-rays, their diagnosis is most likely frozen shoulder,” he said.

Another challenge for primary care providers is identifying the severity of rotator cuff problems, Feeley said. “I like to think of rotator cuff problems along a spectrum — impingement is inflammation above the rotator cuff and suggests an imbalance between rotator cuff strength and deltoid strength,” said Feeley. “Partial thickness tears are often normal age-related problems but can be a source of pain,” he added.

However, full-thickness tears encompass a range of problems, from very small asymptomatic holes in the rotator cuff to massive tears that require shoulder replacement, Feeley explained. “Tendinopathy, or changes in the collagen organization in the tendon of the rotator cuff, sounds problematic, but most often is either incidental or part of aging,” he added.

 

When Shoulder Pain Isn’t Caused by the Shoulder

Primary care patients presenting with shoulder pain may in fact have a neck or spine problem instead, Feeley told this news organization. “Pain that is in the shoulder blade area or down the arm and into the fingers is usually coming from the neck/cervical spine,” he said.

In some cases, shoulder pain stems from the joints below the shoulder, including the elbow, because of arthritis, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylopathy), or golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylopathy), said Angelo. “Conditions of the elbow and neck can also affect shoulder mechanics or cause someone to use the joint more or less frequently,” she said. The interconnections between the neck and joints of the upper extremity, including referral patterns, complicate the diagnosis of shoulder pain; therefore, careful history-taking and examination of joints both above and below the shoulder are essential, she added.

 

Conservative Care

Shoulder problems often can be managed conservatively with therapeutic exercise focused on maintaining range of motion of the shoulder and strengthening the musculature around the shoulder, Angelo said. “Often, working with a physical therapist to address the mechanics of how the shoulder is moving and how the muscles are firing can help decrease pain and help patients meet their functional goals,” said Angelo. “Injections into the joint, the bursa adjacent to the rotator cuff, and, at times, into the tendons themselves can also be beneficial in relieving pain and improving function,” she said.

In some cases, a short, consistent course of anti-inflammatory medications can be part of a conservative strategy for the management of shoulder pain, Angelo noted.

“Utilizing these medications on an as-needed basis can also help patients improve their ability to sleep, perform their daily activities, and participate in physical therapy,” she said. A course of physical therapy that promotes maintaining shoulder range of motion, strengthening of the rotator cuff musculature, and working on the mechanics between the scapula and humerus is a good first step for most shoulder conditions, Angelo told this news organization.

“If there is concern due to recent trauma, significant weakness, or new/persistent numbness, referral to a specialist should be considered,” she said. If conservative measures including analgesics and exercise have failed to improve shoulder pain, advanced imaging and further interventional treatment may be necessary, Angelo added.

Most shoulder problems can and should be managed nonoperatively, Feeley said. Surgery should be reserved for patients whose shoulder pain has not improved with nonoperative care in most situations, he said. “It is often surprising for patients to hear, but most things in the shoulder actually get better without surgery, and changes on MRI are often normal for age,” Feeley noted. For example, more than 80% of individuals older than 50 will show signs of a labral tear or arthritis in the acromioclavicular joint, he said. “These are incidental findings that don’t need treatment,” he added.

More research is needed to develop more medications to manage pain for all musculoskeletal conditions, including shoulder pain, said Feeley. “But for now, for patients with shoulder pain, I tend to recommend a combination of Tylenol and an NSAID to improve inflammation and reduce pain, and a guided [physical] therapy program at home or in person. The combination of both usually will be successful,” he said.

 

Postsurgical Shoulder Pain

“For patients who have shoulder surgery, the techniques to manage pain around surgery have improved tremendously over the last decade, particularly with multimodal pain management and nerve blocks,” Feeley told this news organization. These advances have tremendously reduced the need for narcotics for pain management beyond the first 72 hours after surgery, he said. “I strongly recommend patients and primary care doctors to stop all narcotics as soon as possible after shoulder surgery, since they are not nearly as effective for management of pain after the first few days, and they should never be used as a sleep aid,” he emphasized.

Managing pain during recovery from shoulder surgery also involves about 6 weeks in a sling to protect the repair, followed by 6 weeks of active motion but no strengthening, then 3 months of strengthening exercises, he said.

Shoulder pain resources for patients: https://www.hss.edu/condition-list_shoulder-pain-causes.asp

Feeley’s 10-minute video on shoulder examination and pain assessment at the UCSF 14th Annual Primary Care Sports Medicine Conference, 2019: Video on the Essential Shoulder Exam

Kolfenbach disclosed receiving royalties from Elsevier for being the editor of Rheumatology Secrets and Wolters Kluwer for authoring several articles on UpToDate. Feeley and Angelo had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The causes of shoulder pain may be as common as a traumatic injury or as rare as a systemic inflammatory condition, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The combination of joints, tendons, and muscles that make up the shoulder can present diagnostic and clinical challenges, but several experts shared their tips for management.

Evaluation and Diagnosis

Rotator cuff tendinopathy/tendinitis and subacromial bursitis are typically the most common causes of shoulder pain presenting to a primary care provider, said Jason Kolfenbach, MD, a rheumatologist at UC Health, Denver, Colorado, in an interview. “Other causes of shoulder pain may include acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, biceps tendinitis (often a secondary process in the setting of rotator cuff disease), and true glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis,” he said.

Experts estimate that as much as 80% of shoulder pain involves the muscles, tendons, and ligaments surrounding the joint, rather than true arthritis, said Kolfenbach, who was a co-author of a Medscape slideshow on evaluating shoulder pain. In the slideshow, the authors noted that proper evaluation is needed for successful pain management. Some patients may do well with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), rest, ice, and physical therapy, but more serious conditions may require steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or surgery.

If a patient’s joint pain with active range of motion is relieved when an examiner supports the affected limb (passive range of motion), the cause is more likely related to muscles, tendons, or ligaments, Kolfenbach said.

Primary care providers may not be familiar with examination maneuvers to diagnose shoulder pain, although they are often tasked with evaluating and managing these patients, said Kolfenbach.

Education focused on practical aspects of these maneuvers may help improve primary care confidence in utilizing them and lead to more appropriate ordering of imaging testing and better pain management plans for patients, he said.

However, “If there is concern for a true intra-articular process, plain radiographs are recommended to determine if there is loss of cartilage space and/or other anatomic drivers of pain,” he noted. “Even in conditions of documented intra-articular arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, weakness, and atrophy of the surrounding musculature can contribute to joint disability and pain,” he said. For these patients, referral to physical therapy for periarticular strengthening can provide pain relief, he added.

 

Pinning Down the Pain Point

The many different structures within the shoulder that can cause pain make diagnosis a challenge, Nicole Angelo, DO, MS, a physiatrist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, said in an interview.

Potential sources of pain include the joint of the shoulder itself, the structures within it (labrum, capsule, and ligaments), and the surrounding rotator cuff muscles and tendons, she said. Patients also may experience overlapping pain referred from the neck (cervical spine) related to nerve irritation (cervical radiculopathy) or arthritis, she noted.

“A patient’s history, including mechanism and acuity of injury, as well as exam, specifically weakness in certain movements,” can help determine whether advanced imaging and surgical intervention may be required,” Angelo told this news organization.

Frozen shoulder is the most missed diagnosis of shoulder pain in primary care, Brian Feeley, MD, chief of sports medicine and shoulder surgery at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

Frozen shoulder, also known as adhesive capsulitis, can mimic many other conditions including rotator cuff problems, shoulder arthritis, and biceps problems, Feeley said. “When people have a loss of active and passive range of motion and no evidence of arthritis on x-rays, their diagnosis is most likely frozen shoulder,” he said.

Another challenge for primary care providers is identifying the severity of rotator cuff problems, Feeley said. “I like to think of rotator cuff problems along a spectrum — impingement is inflammation above the rotator cuff and suggests an imbalance between rotator cuff strength and deltoid strength,” said Feeley. “Partial thickness tears are often normal age-related problems but can be a source of pain,” he added.

However, full-thickness tears encompass a range of problems, from very small asymptomatic holes in the rotator cuff to massive tears that require shoulder replacement, Feeley explained. “Tendinopathy, or changes in the collagen organization in the tendon of the rotator cuff, sounds problematic, but most often is either incidental or part of aging,” he added.

 

When Shoulder Pain Isn’t Caused by the Shoulder

Primary care patients presenting with shoulder pain may in fact have a neck or spine problem instead, Feeley told this news organization. “Pain that is in the shoulder blade area or down the arm and into the fingers is usually coming from the neck/cervical spine,” he said.

In some cases, shoulder pain stems from the joints below the shoulder, including the elbow, because of arthritis, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylopathy), or golfer’s elbow (medial epicondylopathy), said Angelo. “Conditions of the elbow and neck can also affect shoulder mechanics or cause someone to use the joint more or less frequently,” she said. The interconnections between the neck and joints of the upper extremity, including referral patterns, complicate the diagnosis of shoulder pain; therefore, careful history-taking and examination of joints both above and below the shoulder are essential, she added.

 

Conservative Care

Shoulder problems often can be managed conservatively with therapeutic exercise focused on maintaining range of motion of the shoulder and strengthening the musculature around the shoulder, Angelo said. “Often, working with a physical therapist to address the mechanics of how the shoulder is moving and how the muscles are firing can help decrease pain and help patients meet their functional goals,” said Angelo. “Injections into the joint, the bursa adjacent to the rotator cuff, and, at times, into the tendons themselves can also be beneficial in relieving pain and improving function,” she said.

In some cases, a short, consistent course of anti-inflammatory medications can be part of a conservative strategy for the management of shoulder pain, Angelo noted.

“Utilizing these medications on an as-needed basis can also help patients improve their ability to sleep, perform their daily activities, and participate in physical therapy,” she said. A course of physical therapy that promotes maintaining shoulder range of motion, strengthening of the rotator cuff musculature, and working on the mechanics between the scapula and humerus is a good first step for most shoulder conditions, Angelo told this news organization.

“If there is concern due to recent trauma, significant weakness, or new/persistent numbness, referral to a specialist should be considered,” she said. If conservative measures including analgesics and exercise have failed to improve shoulder pain, advanced imaging and further interventional treatment may be necessary, Angelo added.

Most shoulder problems can and should be managed nonoperatively, Feeley said. Surgery should be reserved for patients whose shoulder pain has not improved with nonoperative care in most situations, he said. “It is often surprising for patients to hear, but most things in the shoulder actually get better without surgery, and changes on MRI are often normal for age,” Feeley noted. For example, more than 80% of individuals older than 50 will show signs of a labral tear or arthritis in the acromioclavicular joint, he said. “These are incidental findings that don’t need treatment,” he added.

More research is needed to develop more medications to manage pain for all musculoskeletal conditions, including shoulder pain, said Feeley. “But for now, for patients with shoulder pain, I tend to recommend a combination of Tylenol and an NSAID to improve inflammation and reduce pain, and a guided [physical] therapy program at home or in person. The combination of both usually will be successful,” he said.

 

Postsurgical Shoulder Pain

“For patients who have shoulder surgery, the techniques to manage pain around surgery have improved tremendously over the last decade, particularly with multimodal pain management and nerve blocks,” Feeley told this news organization. These advances have tremendously reduced the need for narcotics for pain management beyond the first 72 hours after surgery, he said. “I strongly recommend patients and primary care doctors to stop all narcotics as soon as possible after shoulder surgery, since they are not nearly as effective for management of pain after the first few days, and they should never be used as a sleep aid,” he emphasized.

Managing pain during recovery from shoulder surgery also involves about 6 weeks in a sling to protect the repair, followed by 6 weeks of active motion but no strengthening, then 3 months of strengthening exercises, he said.

Shoulder pain resources for patients: https://www.hss.edu/condition-list_shoulder-pain-causes.asp

Feeley’s 10-minute video on shoulder examination and pain assessment at the UCSF 14th Annual Primary Care Sports Medicine Conference, 2019: Video on the Essential Shoulder Exam

Kolfenbach disclosed receiving royalties from Elsevier for being the editor of Rheumatology Secrets and Wolters Kluwer for authoring several articles on UpToDate. Feeley and Angelo had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

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:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

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:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved bimekizumab, a humanized interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F antagonist, for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Approval was based on results from two phase 3 studies, BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, which found that bimekizumab improved the signs and symptoms of disease compared with placebo at week 16 and were sustained to week 48, according to a press release from UCB, the drug’s manufacturer. In both trials, a higher proportion of patients treated with bimekizumab achieved Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scores of 50 and 75 compared with those who received placebo.

The company noted that bimekizumab (Bimzelx) is the first and only approved medicine designed to selectively inhibit IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. According to the prescribing information, the recommended dosing for patients with HS is 320 mg administered by subcutaneous injection at week 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16, then every 4 weeks thereafter.

“The approval of bimekizumab for moderate-to-severe HS is tremendous news for people living with HS” and the clinicians who care for them, Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, director of the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“It is exciting that we already have two-year trial data for bimekizumab in HS and can see that bimekizumab raises the bar in terms of depth and durability of response that we can expect to see in our patients,” she added. “Given the limited treatment options for HS at this time, the addition of bimekizumab to our treatment armamentarium is a huge step forward for the HS community.”

This development marks the fifth approved indication for bimekizumab since it was first approved in October 2023 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, followed by approvals for active psoriatic arthritis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and active ankylosing spondylitis in September 2024. 

According to the prescribing information, certain adverse reactions have been observed with bimekizumab, including suicidal ideation and behavior, infections, liver biochemical abnormalities, and inflammatory bowel disease. A pregnancy exposure registry has been established that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to bimekizumab. For information, clinicians or patients can contact the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases Study at 1-877-311- 8972 or visit MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies.

Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the HS Foundation and has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB; a speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB; and an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved bimekizumab, a humanized interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F antagonist, for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Approval was based on results from two phase 3 studies, BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, which found that bimekizumab improved the signs and symptoms of disease compared with placebo at week 16 and were sustained to week 48, according to a press release from UCB, the drug’s manufacturer. In both trials, a higher proportion of patients treated with bimekizumab achieved Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scores of 50 and 75 compared with those who received placebo.

The company noted that bimekizumab (Bimzelx) is the first and only approved medicine designed to selectively inhibit IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. According to the prescribing information, the recommended dosing for patients with HS is 320 mg administered by subcutaneous injection at week 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16, then every 4 weeks thereafter.

“The approval of bimekizumab for moderate-to-severe HS is tremendous news for people living with HS” and the clinicians who care for them, Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, director of the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“It is exciting that we already have two-year trial data for bimekizumab in HS and can see that bimekizumab raises the bar in terms of depth and durability of response that we can expect to see in our patients,” she added. “Given the limited treatment options for HS at this time, the addition of bimekizumab to our treatment armamentarium is a huge step forward for the HS community.”

This development marks the fifth approved indication for bimekizumab since it was first approved in October 2023 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, followed by approvals for active psoriatic arthritis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and active ankylosing spondylitis in September 2024. 

According to the prescribing information, certain adverse reactions have been observed with bimekizumab, including suicidal ideation and behavior, infections, liver biochemical abnormalities, and inflammatory bowel disease. A pregnancy exposure registry has been established that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to bimekizumab. For information, clinicians or patients can contact the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases Study at 1-877-311- 8972 or visit MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies.

Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the HS Foundation and has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB; a speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB; and an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved bimekizumab, a humanized interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F antagonist, for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Approval was based on results from two phase 3 studies, BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, which found that bimekizumab improved the signs and symptoms of disease compared with placebo at week 16 and were sustained to week 48, according to a press release from UCB, the drug’s manufacturer. In both trials, a higher proportion of patients treated with bimekizumab achieved Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) scores of 50 and 75 compared with those who received placebo.

The company noted that bimekizumab (Bimzelx) is the first and only approved medicine designed to selectively inhibit IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. According to the prescribing information, the recommended dosing for patients with HS is 320 mg administered by subcutaneous injection at week 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16, then every 4 weeks thereafter.

“The approval of bimekizumab for moderate-to-severe HS is tremendous news for people living with HS” and the clinicians who care for them, Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, director of the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

“It is exciting that we already have two-year trial data for bimekizumab in HS and can see that bimekizumab raises the bar in terms of depth and durability of response that we can expect to see in our patients,” she added. “Given the limited treatment options for HS at this time, the addition of bimekizumab to our treatment armamentarium is a huge step forward for the HS community.”

This development marks the fifth approved indication for bimekizumab since it was first approved in October 2023 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, followed by approvals for active psoriatic arthritis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and active ankylosing spondylitis in September 2024. 

According to the prescribing information, certain adverse reactions have been observed with bimekizumab, including suicidal ideation and behavior, infections, liver biochemical abnormalities, and inflammatory bowel disease. A pregnancy exposure registry has been established that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to bimekizumab. For information, clinicians or patients can contact the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases Study at 1-877-311- 8972 or visit MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies.

Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the HS Foundation and has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB; a speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB; and an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

 

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

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.