User login
AGA Guidelines Endorse Earlier Use of High-Efficacy Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis
In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape,
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated.
“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
- Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
- Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
- Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
- For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
- In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
- The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
- The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
- Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
- The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
- For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
- For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape,
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated.
“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
- Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
- Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
- Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
- For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
- In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
- The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
- The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
- Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
- The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
- For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
- For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape,
“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.
Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.
“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”
One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated.
“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.
The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.
Specifics
Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.
The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.
The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.
Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:
- Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
- Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
- Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
- For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
- In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
- The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
- The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
- Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
- The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
- For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
- For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.
According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.
However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”
Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”
The Future
The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.
The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.
They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.
The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.
These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Higher Early-Onset CRC Mortality Seen in Racial, Ethnic Minorities
TOPLINE:
The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.
METHODOLOGY:
- US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
- A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
- Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
- Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.
TAKEAWAY:
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
- Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
- Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
- Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).
IN PRACTICE:
“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.
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 largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.
METHODOLOGY:
- US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
- A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
- Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
- Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.
TAKEAWAY:
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
- Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
- Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
- Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).
IN PRACTICE:
“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.
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 largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.
METHODOLOGY:
- US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
- A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
- Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
- Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.
TAKEAWAY:
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
- Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
- Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
- Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).
IN PRACTICE:
“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.
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.
AI Tool Identifies Undiagnosed Early-Stage MASLD
SAN DIEGO — according to new research.
Among the patients identified by the algorithm as meeting the criteria for MASLD, only a small percentage had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code.
“A significant portion of patients who meet criteria for MASLD go undiagnosed, which can lead to delays in care and progression to advanced liver disease,” said lead author Ariana Stuart, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Washington, Seattle, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
“However, people shouldn’t interpret our findings as a lack of primary care training or management,” she said. “Instead, this study indicates that AI can complement physician workflow and address the limitations of traditional clinical practice.”
Developing an MASLD Algorithm
Typically, the identification of MASLD has relied on clinician recognition and descriptions in chart notes, Stuart said. Early-stage disease often goes unnoticed, particularly if patients remain asymptomatic, until cirrhosis develops.
To address this, Stuart and colleagues created a machine learning, natural language processing AI algorithm on the basis of MASLD criteria from AASLD: Hepatic steatosis on imaging and at least one metabolic factor (elevated body mass index, hypertension, prediabetes or diabetes, or dyslipidemia). The model was validated by two physicians, who manually reviewed monthly cohorts generated by the algorithm.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, the researchers used the algorithm to analyze an MASLD cohort from medical centers in the Seattle area. The mean age was 51 years, 44% were women, and 68% were White. Those with alcohol-associated liver disease, metastatic malignancy, and autoimmune, genetic, and infectious causes of liver disease were excluded.
The algorithm identified 957 patients with imaging that matched MASLD criteria.
Among those, 137 patients (17%) identified by the algorithm had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code. For these patients, the mean time from initial imaging with steatosis to diagnosis was 33 days, according to patient records.
An additional 26 patients received an MASLD diagnosis during the study period, with a mean time to diagnosis of 56.2 days.
In terms of patient management, 245 patients (26%) had contact with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist based on documentation of a letter, phone call, or office visit. In addition, 546 patients (57%) were screened for hepatitis C.
After adjusting for an over-inclusion error rate of 12.8% and an overdiagnosis rate of 0.02%, the research team found 697 patients (83%) lacked a relevant diagnosis. After multiple iterations, the algorithm achieved an accuracy of about 88%, Stuart said.
Considering Future AI Use
Stuart and colleagues are now testing the algorithm in larger groups and across longer periods.
After that, they intend to implement a quality improvement program to increase awareness for clinicians and primary care providers, as well as train users on how to interpret and move forward with findings of hepatic steatosis in patient records.
For instance, future AI models could flag patients for additional testing, improve chart review, and aid in research efforts around cardiometabolic comorbidities associated with MASLD, she said.
Looking ahead, AI tools such as these represent what’s possible for advancements in research, patient care, and clinical workflows, said Ashley Spann, MD, assistant professor and transplant hepatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and director of clinical research informatics for Vanderbilt’s Gastroenterology Division.
“AI, in my view, is actually augmented intelligence,” she added. “We need to think about the people and processes involved.”
Spann, who spoke about the use of AI tools in medicine in general, stressed the need for transparency in AI use, careful validation of input-output data, frameworks for machine learning models in medicine, and standardization across institutions.
“What we ultimately need is an infrastructure that supports the simultaneous deployment and evaluation of these models,” she said. “We all need to be on the same page and make sure our models work in multiple settings and make adjustments based on algorithmovigilance afterward.”
Stuart reported no relevant disclosures. Spann serves on Epic’s hepatology steering board, which has focused on how to use AI tools in electronic medical records.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to new research.
Among the patients identified by the algorithm as meeting the criteria for MASLD, only a small percentage had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code.
“A significant portion of patients who meet criteria for MASLD go undiagnosed, which can lead to delays in care and progression to advanced liver disease,” said lead author Ariana Stuart, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Washington, Seattle, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
“However, people shouldn’t interpret our findings as a lack of primary care training or management,” she said. “Instead, this study indicates that AI can complement physician workflow and address the limitations of traditional clinical practice.”
Developing an MASLD Algorithm
Typically, the identification of MASLD has relied on clinician recognition and descriptions in chart notes, Stuart said. Early-stage disease often goes unnoticed, particularly if patients remain asymptomatic, until cirrhosis develops.
To address this, Stuart and colleagues created a machine learning, natural language processing AI algorithm on the basis of MASLD criteria from AASLD: Hepatic steatosis on imaging and at least one metabolic factor (elevated body mass index, hypertension, prediabetes or diabetes, or dyslipidemia). The model was validated by two physicians, who manually reviewed monthly cohorts generated by the algorithm.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, the researchers used the algorithm to analyze an MASLD cohort from medical centers in the Seattle area. The mean age was 51 years, 44% were women, and 68% were White. Those with alcohol-associated liver disease, metastatic malignancy, and autoimmune, genetic, and infectious causes of liver disease were excluded.
The algorithm identified 957 patients with imaging that matched MASLD criteria.
Among those, 137 patients (17%) identified by the algorithm had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code. For these patients, the mean time from initial imaging with steatosis to diagnosis was 33 days, according to patient records.
An additional 26 patients received an MASLD diagnosis during the study period, with a mean time to diagnosis of 56.2 days.
In terms of patient management, 245 patients (26%) had contact with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist based on documentation of a letter, phone call, or office visit. In addition, 546 patients (57%) were screened for hepatitis C.
After adjusting for an over-inclusion error rate of 12.8% and an overdiagnosis rate of 0.02%, the research team found 697 patients (83%) lacked a relevant diagnosis. After multiple iterations, the algorithm achieved an accuracy of about 88%, Stuart said.
Considering Future AI Use
Stuart and colleagues are now testing the algorithm in larger groups and across longer periods.
After that, they intend to implement a quality improvement program to increase awareness for clinicians and primary care providers, as well as train users on how to interpret and move forward with findings of hepatic steatosis in patient records.
For instance, future AI models could flag patients for additional testing, improve chart review, and aid in research efforts around cardiometabolic comorbidities associated with MASLD, she said.
Looking ahead, AI tools such as these represent what’s possible for advancements in research, patient care, and clinical workflows, said Ashley Spann, MD, assistant professor and transplant hepatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and director of clinical research informatics for Vanderbilt’s Gastroenterology Division.
“AI, in my view, is actually augmented intelligence,” she added. “We need to think about the people and processes involved.”
Spann, who spoke about the use of AI tools in medicine in general, stressed the need for transparency in AI use, careful validation of input-output data, frameworks for machine learning models in medicine, and standardization across institutions.
“What we ultimately need is an infrastructure that supports the simultaneous deployment and evaluation of these models,” she said. “We all need to be on the same page and make sure our models work in multiple settings and make adjustments based on algorithmovigilance afterward.”
Stuart reported no relevant disclosures. Spann serves on Epic’s hepatology steering board, which has focused on how to use AI tools in electronic medical records.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to new research.
Among the patients identified by the algorithm as meeting the criteria for MASLD, only a small percentage had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code.
“A significant portion of patients who meet criteria for MASLD go undiagnosed, which can lead to delays in care and progression to advanced liver disease,” said lead author Ariana Stuart, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Washington, Seattle, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
“However, people shouldn’t interpret our findings as a lack of primary care training or management,” she said. “Instead, this study indicates that AI can complement physician workflow and address the limitations of traditional clinical practice.”
Developing an MASLD Algorithm
Typically, the identification of MASLD has relied on clinician recognition and descriptions in chart notes, Stuart said. Early-stage disease often goes unnoticed, particularly if patients remain asymptomatic, until cirrhosis develops.
To address this, Stuart and colleagues created a machine learning, natural language processing AI algorithm on the basis of MASLD criteria from AASLD: Hepatic steatosis on imaging and at least one metabolic factor (elevated body mass index, hypertension, prediabetes or diabetes, or dyslipidemia). The model was validated by two physicians, who manually reviewed monthly cohorts generated by the algorithm.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, the researchers used the algorithm to analyze an MASLD cohort from medical centers in the Seattle area. The mean age was 51 years, 44% were women, and 68% were White. Those with alcohol-associated liver disease, metastatic malignancy, and autoimmune, genetic, and infectious causes of liver disease were excluded.
The algorithm identified 957 patients with imaging that matched MASLD criteria.
Among those, 137 patients (17%) identified by the algorithm had an MASLD-associated diagnostic code. For these patients, the mean time from initial imaging with steatosis to diagnosis was 33 days, according to patient records.
An additional 26 patients received an MASLD diagnosis during the study period, with a mean time to diagnosis of 56.2 days.
In terms of patient management, 245 patients (26%) had contact with a gastroenterologist or hepatologist based on documentation of a letter, phone call, or office visit. In addition, 546 patients (57%) were screened for hepatitis C.
After adjusting for an over-inclusion error rate of 12.8% and an overdiagnosis rate of 0.02%, the research team found 697 patients (83%) lacked a relevant diagnosis. After multiple iterations, the algorithm achieved an accuracy of about 88%, Stuart said.
Considering Future AI Use
Stuart and colleagues are now testing the algorithm in larger groups and across longer periods.
After that, they intend to implement a quality improvement program to increase awareness for clinicians and primary care providers, as well as train users on how to interpret and move forward with findings of hepatic steatosis in patient records.
For instance, future AI models could flag patients for additional testing, improve chart review, and aid in research efforts around cardiometabolic comorbidities associated with MASLD, she said.
Looking ahead, AI tools such as these represent what’s possible for advancements in research, patient care, and clinical workflows, said Ashley Spann, MD, assistant professor and transplant hepatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and director of clinical research informatics for Vanderbilt’s Gastroenterology Division.
“AI, in my view, is actually augmented intelligence,” she added. “We need to think about the people and processes involved.”
Spann, who spoke about the use of AI tools in medicine in general, stressed the need for transparency in AI use, careful validation of input-output data, frameworks for machine learning models in medicine, and standardization across institutions.
“What we ultimately need is an infrastructure that supports the simultaneous deployment and evaluation of these models,” she said. “We all need to be on the same page and make sure our models work in multiple settings and make adjustments based on algorithmovigilance afterward.”
Stuart reported no relevant disclosures. Spann serves on Epic’s hepatology steering board, which has focused on how to use AI tools in electronic medical records.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AASLD 24
MELD 3.0 Reduces Sex-Based Liver Transplant Disparities
SAN DIEGO — , according to new research.
In particular, women are now more likely to be added to the waitlist for a liver transplant, more likely to receive a transplant, and less likely to fall off the waitlist because of death.
“MELD 3.0 improved access to transplantation for women, and now waitlist mortality and transplant rates for women more closely approximate the rates for men,” said lead author Allison Kwong, MD, assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford Medicine in California.
“Overall transplant outcomes have also improved year over year,” said Kwong, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Changes in MELD and Transplant Numbers
MELD, which estimates liver failure severity and short-term survival in patients with chronic liver disease, has been used since 2002 to determine organ allocation priority for patients in the United States awaiting liver transplantation. Originally, the score incorporated three variables: creatinine, bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio (INR). MELDNa1, or MELD 2.0, was adopted in 2016 to add sodium.
“Under this system, however, there have been sex-based disparities” with women receiving lower priority scores despite similar disease severity, said Kwong.
“This has been attributed to several factors, such as the creatinine term in the MELD score underestimating renal dysfunction in women, height and body size differences, and differences in disease etiology, and how we’ve assigned exception points historically,” she reported.
Men have had a lower pretransplant mortality rate and higher deceased donor transplant rates, she added.
MELD 3.0 was developed to address these gender differences and other determinants of waitlist outcomes. The updated equation added 1.33 points for women, as well as adding other variables, such as albumin, interactions between bilirubin and sodium, and interactions between albumin and creatinine, to increase prediction accuracy.
To observe the effects of the new system, Kwong and colleagues analyzed OPTN data for patients aged 12 years or older, focusing on the records of more than 20,300 newly registered liver transplant candidates, and about 18,700 transplant recipients, during the 12 months before and 12 months after MELD 3.0 was implemented.
After the switch, 43.7% of newly registered liver transplant candidates were women, compared with 40.4% before the switch. At registration, the median age was 55, both before and after the change in policy, and the median MELD score changed from 23 to 22 after implementation.
In addition, 42.1% of transplants occurred among women after MELD 3.0 implementation, as compared with 37.3% before. Overall, deceased donor transplant rates were similar for men and women after MELD 3.0 implementation.
The 90-day waitlist dropout rate — patients who died or became too sick to receive a transplant — decreased from 13.5% to 9.1% among women, which may be partially attributable to MELD 3.0, said Kwong.
However, waitlist dropout rates also decreased among men, from 9.8% to 7.4%, probably because of improvements in technology, such as machine perfusion, which have increased the number of available livers, she added.
Disparities Continue to Exist
Some disparities still exist. Although the total median MELD score at transplant decreased from 29 to 27, women still had a higher median score of 29 at transplant, compared with a median score of 27 among men.
“This indicates that there may still be differences in transplant access between the sexes,” Kwong said. “There are still body size differences that can affect the probability of transplant, and this would not be addressed by MELD 3.0.”
Additional transplant disparities exist related to other patient characteristics, such as age, race, and ethnicity.
Future versions of MELD could potentially consider these factors, said session moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2023-2025.
“There are infinite versions of MELD that can be made,” Kwong said. “It’s still early to see how MELD 3.0 will serve the system, but so far, so good.”
In a comment, Tamar Taddei, MD, professor of medicine in digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, who comoderated the session, noted the importance of using a MELD score that considers sex-based differences.
This study brings MELD 3.0 to its fruition by reducing the disparities experienced by women who were underserved by the previous scoring systems, she said.
It was lovely to see that MELD 3.0 reduced the disparities with transplants, and also that the waitlist dropout was reduced — for both men and women,” Taddei said. “This change is a no-brainer.”
Kwong, Krag, and Taddei reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — , according to new research.
In particular, women are now more likely to be added to the waitlist for a liver transplant, more likely to receive a transplant, and less likely to fall off the waitlist because of death.
“MELD 3.0 improved access to transplantation for women, and now waitlist mortality and transplant rates for women more closely approximate the rates for men,” said lead author Allison Kwong, MD, assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford Medicine in California.
“Overall transplant outcomes have also improved year over year,” said Kwong, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Changes in MELD and Transplant Numbers
MELD, which estimates liver failure severity and short-term survival in patients with chronic liver disease, has been used since 2002 to determine organ allocation priority for patients in the United States awaiting liver transplantation. Originally, the score incorporated three variables: creatinine, bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio (INR). MELDNa1, or MELD 2.0, was adopted in 2016 to add sodium.
“Under this system, however, there have been sex-based disparities” with women receiving lower priority scores despite similar disease severity, said Kwong.
“This has been attributed to several factors, such as the creatinine term in the MELD score underestimating renal dysfunction in women, height and body size differences, and differences in disease etiology, and how we’ve assigned exception points historically,” she reported.
Men have had a lower pretransplant mortality rate and higher deceased donor transplant rates, she added.
MELD 3.0 was developed to address these gender differences and other determinants of waitlist outcomes. The updated equation added 1.33 points for women, as well as adding other variables, such as albumin, interactions between bilirubin and sodium, and interactions between albumin and creatinine, to increase prediction accuracy.
To observe the effects of the new system, Kwong and colleagues analyzed OPTN data for patients aged 12 years or older, focusing on the records of more than 20,300 newly registered liver transplant candidates, and about 18,700 transplant recipients, during the 12 months before and 12 months after MELD 3.0 was implemented.
After the switch, 43.7% of newly registered liver transplant candidates were women, compared with 40.4% before the switch. At registration, the median age was 55, both before and after the change in policy, and the median MELD score changed from 23 to 22 after implementation.
In addition, 42.1% of transplants occurred among women after MELD 3.0 implementation, as compared with 37.3% before. Overall, deceased donor transplant rates were similar for men and women after MELD 3.0 implementation.
The 90-day waitlist dropout rate — patients who died or became too sick to receive a transplant — decreased from 13.5% to 9.1% among women, which may be partially attributable to MELD 3.0, said Kwong.
However, waitlist dropout rates also decreased among men, from 9.8% to 7.4%, probably because of improvements in technology, such as machine perfusion, which have increased the number of available livers, she added.
Disparities Continue to Exist
Some disparities still exist. Although the total median MELD score at transplant decreased from 29 to 27, women still had a higher median score of 29 at transplant, compared with a median score of 27 among men.
“This indicates that there may still be differences in transplant access between the sexes,” Kwong said. “There are still body size differences that can affect the probability of transplant, and this would not be addressed by MELD 3.0.”
Additional transplant disparities exist related to other patient characteristics, such as age, race, and ethnicity.
Future versions of MELD could potentially consider these factors, said session moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2023-2025.
“There are infinite versions of MELD that can be made,” Kwong said. “It’s still early to see how MELD 3.0 will serve the system, but so far, so good.”
In a comment, Tamar Taddei, MD, professor of medicine in digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, who comoderated the session, noted the importance of using a MELD score that considers sex-based differences.
This study brings MELD 3.0 to its fruition by reducing the disparities experienced by women who were underserved by the previous scoring systems, she said.
It was lovely to see that MELD 3.0 reduced the disparities with transplants, and also that the waitlist dropout was reduced — for both men and women,” Taddei said. “This change is a no-brainer.”
Kwong, Krag, and Taddei reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — , according to new research.
In particular, women are now more likely to be added to the waitlist for a liver transplant, more likely to receive a transplant, and less likely to fall off the waitlist because of death.
“MELD 3.0 improved access to transplantation for women, and now waitlist mortality and transplant rates for women more closely approximate the rates for men,” said lead author Allison Kwong, MD, assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford Medicine in California.
“Overall transplant outcomes have also improved year over year,” said Kwong, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Changes in MELD and Transplant Numbers
MELD, which estimates liver failure severity and short-term survival in patients with chronic liver disease, has been used since 2002 to determine organ allocation priority for patients in the United States awaiting liver transplantation. Originally, the score incorporated three variables: creatinine, bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio (INR). MELDNa1, or MELD 2.0, was adopted in 2016 to add sodium.
“Under this system, however, there have been sex-based disparities” with women receiving lower priority scores despite similar disease severity, said Kwong.
“This has been attributed to several factors, such as the creatinine term in the MELD score underestimating renal dysfunction in women, height and body size differences, and differences in disease etiology, and how we’ve assigned exception points historically,” she reported.
Men have had a lower pretransplant mortality rate and higher deceased donor transplant rates, she added.
MELD 3.0 was developed to address these gender differences and other determinants of waitlist outcomes. The updated equation added 1.33 points for women, as well as adding other variables, such as albumin, interactions between bilirubin and sodium, and interactions between albumin and creatinine, to increase prediction accuracy.
To observe the effects of the new system, Kwong and colleagues analyzed OPTN data for patients aged 12 years or older, focusing on the records of more than 20,300 newly registered liver transplant candidates, and about 18,700 transplant recipients, during the 12 months before and 12 months after MELD 3.0 was implemented.
After the switch, 43.7% of newly registered liver transplant candidates were women, compared with 40.4% before the switch. At registration, the median age was 55, both before and after the change in policy, and the median MELD score changed from 23 to 22 after implementation.
In addition, 42.1% of transplants occurred among women after MELD 3.0 implementation, as compared with 37.3% before. Overall, deceased donor transplant rates were similar for men and women after MELD 3.0 implementation.
The 90-day waitlist dropout rate — patients who died or became too sick to receive a transplant — decreased from 13.5% to 9.1% among women, which may be partially attributable to MELD 3.0, said Kwong.
However, waitlist dropout rates also decreased among men, from 9.8% to 7.4%, probably because of improvements in technology, such as machine perfusion, which have increased the number of available livers, she added.
Disparities Continue to Exist
Some disparities still exist. Although the total median MELD score at transplant decreased from 29 to 27, women still had a higher median score of 29 at transplant, compared with a median score of 27 among men.
“This indicates that there may still be differences in transplant access between the sexes,” Kwong said. “There are still body size differences that can affect the probability of transplant, and this would not be addressed by MELD 3.0.”
Additional transplant disparities exist related to other patient characteristics, such as age, race, and ethnicity.
Future versions of MELD could potentially consider these factors, said session moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2023-2025.
“There are infinite versions of MELD that can be made,” Kwong said. “It’s still early to see how MELD 3.0 will serve the system, but so far, so good.”
In a comment, Tamar Taddei, MD, professor of medicine in digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, who comoderated the session, noted the importance of using a MELD score that considers sex-based differences.
This study brings MELD 3.0 to its fruition by reducing the disparities experienced by women who were underserved by the previous scoring systems, she said.
It was lovely to see that MELD 3.0 reduced the disparities with transplants, and also that the waitlist dropout was reduced — for both men and women,” Taddei said. “This change is a no-brainer.”
Kwong, Krag, and Taddei reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AASLD 24
‘Watershed Moment’: Semaglutide Shown to Be Effective in MASH
SAN DIEGO — according to interim results from a phase 3 trial.
At 72 weeks, a 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous dose of semaglutide demonstrated superiority, compared with placebo, for the two primary endpoints: Resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis and improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis.
“It’s been a long journey. I’ve been working with GLP-1s for 16 years, and it’s great to be able to report the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to demonstrate efficacy in a phase 3 trial for MASH,” said lead author Philip Newsome, MD, PhD, director of the Roger Williams Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College London in England.
“There were also improvements in a slew of other noninvasive markers,” said Newsome, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Although already seen in a broader context, “it’s nice to see a demonstration of the cardiometabolic benefits in the context of MASH and a reassuring safety profile,” he added.
Interim ESSENCE Trial Analysis
ESSENCE (NCT04822181) is an ongoing multicenter, phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial studying semaglutide for the potential treatment of MASH.
The trial includes 1200 participants with biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis, stages F2 and F3, who were randomized 2:1 to a once-weekly subcutaneous injection of 2.4 mg of semaglutide or placebo for 240 weeks. After initiation, the semaglutide dosage was increased every 4 weeks up to 16 weeks when the full dose (2.4 mg) was reached.
In a planned interim analysis, the trial investigators evaluated the primary endpoints at week 72 for the first 800 participants, with biopsies taken at weeks 1 and 72.
A total of 534 people were randomized to the semaglutide group, including 169 with F2 fibrosis and 365 with F3 fibrosis. Among the 266 participants randomized to placebo, 81 had F2 fibrosis and 185 had F3 fibrosis.
At baseline, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups (mean age, 56 years; body mass index, 34.6). A majority of participants also were White (67.5%), women (57.1%), had type 2 diabetes (55.9%), F3 fibrosis (68.8%), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scores around 10 (55.5%).
For the first primary endpoint, 62.9% of those in the semaglutide group and 34.1% of those in the placebo group reached resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis. This represented an estimated difference in responder proportions (EDP) of 28.9%.
In addition, 37% of those in the semaglutide group and 22.5% of those in the placebo group met the second primary endpoint of improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis (EDP, 14.4%).
Among the secondary endpoints, combined resolution of steatohepatitis with a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis occurred in 32.8% of the semaglutide group and 16.2% of the placebo group (EDP, 16.6%).
In additional analyses, Newsome and colleagues found 20%-40% improvements in liver enzymes and noninvasive fibrosis markers, such as ELF and vibration-controlled transient elastography liver stiffness.
Weight loss was also significant, with a 10.5% reduction in the semaglutide group compared with a 2% reduction in the placebo group.
Cardiometabolic risk factors improved as well, with changes in blood pressure measurements, hemoglobin A1c scores, and cholesterol values.
Although not considered statistically significant, patients in the semaglutide group also reported greater reductions in body pain.
In a safety analysis of 1195 participants at 96 weeks, adverse events, severe adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in both groups. Not surprisingly, gastrointestinal side effects were more commonly reported in the semaglutide group, Newsome said.
Highly Anticipated Results
After Newsome’s presentation, attendees applauded.
Rohit Loomba, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, called the results the “highlight of the meeting.”
This sentiment was echoed by Naga Chalasani, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, who called the results a “watershed moment in the MASH field” with “terrific data.”
Based on questions after the presentation, Newsome indicated that future ESSENCE reports would look at certain aspects of the results, such as the 10% weight loss among those in the semaglutide group, as well as the mechanisms of histological and fibrosis improvement.
“We know from other GLP-1 trials that more weight loss occurs in those who don’t have type 2 diabetes, and we’re still running those analyses,” he said. “Weight loss is clearly a major contributor to MASH improvement, but there seem to be some weight-independent effects here, which are likely linked to insulin sensitivity or inflammation. We look forward to presenting those analyses in due course.”
In a comment, Kimberly Ann Brown, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, AASLD Foundation chair, and comoderator of the late-breaking abstract session, spoke about the highly anticipated presentation.
“This study was really the pinnacle of this meeting. We’ve all been waiting for this data, in large part because many of our patients are already using these medications,” Brown said. “Seeing the benefit for the liver, as well as lipids and other cardiovascular measures, is so important. Having this confirmatory study will hopefully lead to the availability of the medication for this indication among our patients.”
Newsome reported numerous disclosures, including consultant relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Loomba has research grant relationships with numerous companies, including Hanmi, Gilead, Galmed Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Chalasani has consultant relationships with Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, GSK, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, and Zydus. Brown reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to interim results from a phase 3 trial.
At 72 weeks, a 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous dose of semaglutide demonstrated superiority, compared with placebo, for the two primary endpoints: Resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis and improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis.
“It’s been a long journey. I’ve been working with GLP-1s for 16 years, and it’s great to be able to report the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to demonstrate efficacy in a phase 3 trial for MASH,” said lead author Philip Newsome, MD, PhD, director of the Roger Williams Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College London in England.
“There were also improvements in a slew of other noninvasive markers,” said Newsome, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Although already seen in a broader context, “it’s nice to see a demonstration of the cardiometabolic benefits in the context of MASH and a reassuring safety profile,” he added.
Interim ESSENCE Trial Analysis
ESSENCE (NCT04822181) is an ongoing multicenter, phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial studying semaglutide for the potential treatment of MASH.
The trial includes 1200 participants with biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis, stages F2 and F3, who were randomized 2:1 to a once-weekly subcutaneous injection of 2.4 mg of semaglutide or placebo for 240 weeks. After initiation, the semaglutide dosage was increased every 4 weeks up to 16 weeks when the full dose (2.4 mg) was reached.
In a planned interim analysis, the trial investigators evaluated the primary endpoints at week 72 for the first 800 participants, with biopsies taken at weeks 1 and 72.
A total of 534 people were randomized to the semaglutide group, including 169 with F2 fibrosis and 365 with F3 fibrosis. Among the 266 participants randomized to placebo, 81 had F2 fibrosis and 185 had F3 fibrosis.
At baseline, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups (mean age, 56 years; body mass index, 34.6). A majority of participants also were White (67.5%), women (57.1%), had type 2 diabetes (55.9%), F3 fibrosis (68.8%), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scores around 10 (55.5%).
For the first primary endpoint, 62.9% of those in the semaglutide group and 34.1% of those in the placebo group reached resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis. This represented an estimated difference in responder proportions (EDP) of 28.9%.
In addition, 37% of those in the semaglutide group and 22.5% of those in the placebo group met the second primary endpoint of improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis (EDP, 14.4%).
Among the secondary endpoints, combined resolution of steatohepatitis with a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis occurred in 32.8% of the semaglutide group and 16.2% of the placebo group (EDP, 16.6%).
In additional analyses, Newsome and colleagues found 20%-40% improvements in liver enzymes and noninvasive fibrosis markers, such as ELF and vibration-controlled transient elastography liver stiffness.
Weight loss was also significant, with a 10.5% reduction in the semaglutide group compared with a 2% reduction in the placebo group.
Cardiometabolic risk factors improved as well, with changes in blood pressure measurements, hemoglobin A1c scores, and cholesterol values.
Although not considered statistically significant, patients in the semaglutide group also reported greater reductions in body pain.
In a safety analysis of 1195 participants at 96 weeks, adverse events, severe adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in both groups. Not surprisingly, gastrointestinal side effects were more commonly reported in the semaglutide group, Newsome said.
Highly Anticipated Results
After Newsome’s presentation, attendees applauded.
Rohit Loomba, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, called the results the “highlight of the meeting.”
This sentiment was echoed by Naga Chalasani, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, who called the results a “watershed moment in the MASH field” with “terrific data.”
Based on questions after the presentation, Newsome indicated that future ESSENCE reports would look at certain aspects of the results, such as the 10% weight loss among those in the semaglutide group, as well as the mechanisms of histological and fibrosis improvement.
“We know from other GLP-1 trials that more weight loss occurs in those who don’t have type 2 diabetes, and we’re still running those analyses,” he said. “Weight loss is clearly a major contributor to MASH improvement, but there seem to be some weight-independent effects here, which are likely linked to insulin sensitivity or inflammation. We look forward to presenting those analyses in due course.”
In a comment, Kimberly Ann Brown, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, AASLD Foundation chair, and comoderator of the late-breaking abstract session, spoke about the highly anticipated presentation.
“This study was really the pinnacle of this meeting. We’ve all been waiting for this data, in large part because many of our patients are already using these medications,” Brown said. “Seeing the benefit for the liver, as well as lipids and other cardiovascular measures, is so important. Having this confirmatory study will hopefully lead to the availability of the medication for this indication among our patients.”
Newsome reported numerous disclosures, including consultant relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Loomba has research grant relationships with numerous companies, including Hanmi, Gilead, Galmed Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Chalasani has consultant relationships with Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, GSK, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, and Zydus. Brown reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — according to interim results from a phase 3 trial.
At 72 weeks, a 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous dose of semaglutide demonstrated superiority, compared with placebo, for the two primary endpoints: Resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis and improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis.
“It’s been a long journey. I’ve been working with GLP-1s for 16 years, and it’s great to be able to report the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to demonstrate efficacy in a phase 3 trial for MASH,” said lead author Philip Newsome, MD, PhD, director of the Roger Williams Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College London in England.
“There were also improvements in a slew of other noninvasive markers,” said Newsome, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD).
Although already seen in a broader context, “it’s nice to see a demonstration of the cardiometabolic benefits in the context of MASH and a reassuring safety profile,” he added.
Interim ESSENCE Trial Analysis
ESSENCE (NCT04822181) is an ongoing multicenter, phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial studying semaglutide for the potential treatment of MASH.
The trial includes 1200 participants with biopsy-defined MASH and fibrosis, stages F2 and F3, who were randomized 2:1 to a once-weekly subcutaneous injection of 2.4 mg of semaglutide or placebo for 240 weeks. After initiation, the semaglutide dosage was increased every 4 weeks up to 16 weeks when the full dose (2.4 mg) was reached.
In a planned interim analysis, the trial investigators evaluated the primary endpoints at week 72 for the first 800 participants, with biopsies taken at weeks 1 and 72.
A total of 534 people were randomized to the semaglutide group, including 169 with F2 fibrosis and 365 with F3 fibrosis. Among the 266 participants randomized to placebo, 81 had F2 fibrosis and 185 had F3 fibrosis.
At baseline, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups (mean age, 56 years; body mass index, 34.6). A majority of participants also were White (67.5%), women (57.1%), had type 2 diabetes (55.9%), F3 fibrosis (68.8%), and enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) scores around 10 (55.5%).
For the first primary endpoint, 62.9% of those in the semaglutide group and 34.1% of those in the placebo group reached resolution of steatohepatitis with no worsening of fibrosis. This represented an estimated difference in responder proportions (EDP) of 28.9%.
In addition, 37% of those in the semaglutide group and 22.5% of those in the placebo group met the second primary endpoint of improvement in liver fibrosis with no worsening of steatohepatitis (EDP, 14.4%).
Among the secondary endpoints, combined resolution of steatohepatitis with a one-stage improvement in liver fibrosis occurred in 32.8% of the semaglutide group and 16.2% of the placebo group (EDP, 16.6%).
In additional analyses, Newsome and colleagues found 20%-40% improvements in liver enzymes and noninvasive fibrosis markers, such as ELF and vibration-controlled transient elastography liver stiffness.
Weight loss was also significant, with a 10.5% reduction in the semaglutide group compared with a 2% reduction in the placebo group.
Cardiometabolic risk factors improved as well, with changes in blood pressure measurements, hemoglobin A1c scores, and cholesterol values.
Although not considered statistically significant, patients in the semaglutide group also reported greater reductions in body pain.
In a safety analysis of 1195 participants at 96 weeks, adverse events, severe adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in both groups. Not surprisingly, gastrointestinal side effects were more commonly reported in the semaglutide group, Newsome said.
Highly Anticipated Results
After Newsome’s presentation, attendees applauded.
Rohit Loomba, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved with the study, called the results the “highlight of the meeting.”
This sentiment was echoed by Naga Chalasani, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, who called the results a “watershed moment in the MASH field” with “terrific data.”
Based on questions after the presentation, Newsome indicated that future ESSENCE reports would look at certain aspects of the results, such as the 10% weight loss among those in the semaglutide group, as well as the mechanisms of histological and fibrosis improvement.
“We know from other GLP-1 trials that more weight loss occurs in those who don’t have type 2 diabetes, and we’re still running those analyses,” he said. “Weight loss is clearly a major contributor to MASH improvement, but there seem to be some weight-independent effects here, which are likely linked to insulin sensitivity or inflammation. We look forward to presenting those analyses in due course.”
In a comment, Kimberly Ann Brown, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, AASLD Foundation chair, and comoderator of the late-breaking abstract session, spoke about the highly anticipated presentation.
“This study was really the pinnacle of this meeting. We’ve all been waiting for this data, in large part because many of our patients are already using these medications,” Brown said. “Seeing the benefit for the liver, as well as lipids and other cardiovascular measures, is so important. Having this confirmatory study will hopefully lead to the availability of the medication for this indication among our patients.”
Newsome reported numerous disclosures, including consultant relationships with pharmaceutical companies, such as Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Loomba has research grant relationships with numerous companies, including Hanmi, Gilead, Galmed Pharmaceuticals, Galectin Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Chalasani has consultant relationships with Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, GSK, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, and Zydus. Brown reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AASLD 24
US Alcohol-Related Deaths Double Over 2 Decades, With Notable Age and Gender Disparities
TOPLINE:
US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
- Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
- International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
- Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
- American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
- The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Alexandra Matarazzo, BS, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. It was published online in The American Journal of Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure because of the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist because of different population mixes between the two time points.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. One coauthor disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the Food and Drug Administration, and to Up to Date. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
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:
US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
- Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
- International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
- Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
- American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
- The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Alexandra Matarazzo, BS, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. It was published online in The American Journal of Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure because of the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist because of different population mixes between the two time points.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. One coauthor disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the Food and Drug Administration, and to Up to Date. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
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:
US alcohol-related mortality rates increased from 10.7 to 21.6 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2020, with the largest rise of 3.8-fold observed in adults aged 25-34 years. Women experienced a 2.5-fold increase, while the Midwest region showed a similar rise in mortality rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- Analysis utilized the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research to examine alcohol-related mortality trends from 1999 to 2020.
- Researchers analyzed data from a total US population of 180,408,769 people aged 25 to 85+ years in 1999 and 226,635,013 people in 2020.
- International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes were used to identify deaths with alcohol attribution, including mental and behavioral disorders, alcoholic organ damage, and alcohol-related poisoning.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall mortality rates increased from 10.7 (95% CI, 10.6-10.8) per 100,000 in 1999 to 21.6 (95% CI, 21.4-21.8) per 100,000 in 2020, representing a significant twofold increase.
- Adults aged 55-64 years demonstrated both the steepest increase and highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020.
- American Indian and Alaska Native individuals experienced the steepest increase and highest absolute rates among all racial groups.
- The West region maintained the highest absolute rates in both 1999 and 2020, despite the Midwest showing the largest increase.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol tend to have the highest risks of total mortality as well as deaths from cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease deaths are predominantly due to myocardial infarction and stroke. To mitigate these risks, health providers may wish to implement screening for alcohol use in primary care and other healthcare settings. By providing brief interventions and referrals to treatment, healthcare providers would be able to achieve the early identification of individuals at risk of alcohol-related harm and offer them the support and resources they need to reduce their alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Alexandra Matarazzo, BS, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. It was published online in The American Journal of Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
According to the authors, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the study to descriptive analysis only, making it suitable for hypothesis generation but not hypothesis testing. While the validity and generalizability within the United States are secure because of the use of complete population data, potential bias and uncontrolled confounding may exist because of different population mixes between the two time points.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. One coauthor disclosed serving as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of Data Monitoring Committees for Amgen and UBC, to the Food and Drug Administration, and to Up to Date. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
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.
Side Effects of GLP-1 Drugs: What Doctors Should Know
Just a few years after some TikTok videos spiked the demand, one in eight US adults has tried Ozempic (semaglutide) or another drug in its class. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications have revolutionized obesity medicine.
But they’re not without problems. In the early days of the social media craze, news reports often featured patients whose gastrointestinal side effects sent them to the emergency room (ER).
“It happened a lot then. Patients didn’t want to complain because they were losing weight, and they wound up in the ER with extreme constipation or a small bowel obstruction,” said Caroline Apovian, MD, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“But that’s not really happening now,” she added.
Research backs up her assertion: A recent clinical review of studies found that many patients still experience side effects, but only at a mild to moderate level, while the dosage increases — and the unpleasantness tapers with time. Roughly 7% of patients discontinue the medications due to these symptoms.
Here’s what the latest research shows about GLP-1s’ side effects.
Most Common: Gastrointestinal Issues
Depending on the symptom and the specific drug, anywhere from one third to one half of patients will experience some kind of stomach trouble.
- In that clinical review, which looked at studies of three GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) — semaglutide users fared comparatively worse.
- Nausea was reported most frequently — 44.2% of semaglutide users dealt with it, compared with 40.2% for liraglutide and 31% for tirzepatide. Diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting also struck one quarter to one third of semaglutide patients, and slightly fewer for the other two medications.
Apovian finds that careful dosage helps her patients avoid the worst effects.
“We don’t know who’s going to do well and who’s not,” she said. “We start slowly, and usually things go OK.”
If a patient does react poorly, she’ll hold off on increasing the dosage until they acclimate and advise using over-the-counter meds like MiraLAX to address the symptoms.
Few documented severe adverse gastro events appeared in the data, affecting less than 1% of liraglutide and tirzepatide patients and 2.6% of semaglutide users. The majority of these events were gallbladder-related.
Questions About Causation: Depression and Suicidality
About a year ago, a study used 18 years’ worth of data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine how often patients reported suicidal ideation and/or depression while using GLP-1 medications. Compared with metformin and insulin, researchers found disproportionate reporting by patients using semaglutide and liraglutide. Other GLP-1 medications didn’t show this effect. The researchers pointed out: These statistics don’t show causation — there’s no clear reason why those two medications were linked to more reports.
Further research has been more reassuring:
- Another study also used FAERS but looked only at data from 2018 to 2022, when usage of these drugs was ramping up, and found no link between suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and GLP-1.
- A recent cohort study, which looked at data from nearly 300,000 people, found that GLP-1 users aren’t at increased risk for death by suicide.
- Both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have issued statements that the evidence doesn’t support a causal association.
There are several factors at play here. People with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have depression to begin with. And more importantly, even if there is a link, causality remains unclear. For instance, patients who lose weight via bariatric surgery are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, and self-harm. These symptoms may be related to the weight loss itself, not the medications.
“Some people use food as something other than nutrition. They use food to soothe other psychological issues,” Apovian said. “When that’s taken away, the psychological issues are still there.”
In her practice, she’s seen the risk for mental health issues rise with more substantial weight loss — 50-100 pounds.
This lack of clarity regarding causation means it’s important to perform a detailed patient history before prescribing, so you can monitor more closely with preexisting psychiatric disorders.
Possible Link: Ocular Symptoms
Here, too, the research isn’t definitive but leans toward no clear association. Several studies have looked for a link between GLP-1 and vision-related issues:
- One examined FAERS data and network pharmacology and found semaglutide and lixisenatide were significantly associated with adverse events like blurred vision, visual impairment, and diabetic retinopathy.
- This summer, a cohort study of almost 17,000 people with diabetes or overweight/obesity suggested a link between semaglutide and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a common cause of blindness due to optic nerve damage. The study found “a substantially increased risk of NAION among individuals prescribed semaglutide relative to those prescribed other medications to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity or overweight.”
- But this month, another cohort study with 135,000 participants looked at NAION in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. It compared results with common non-GLP-1 medications and found just the opposite: No increased risk for NAION.
One drawback with all these studies is that they’re based on large databases rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When researchers focused on RCTs in a 2023 meta-analysis, they found a significant association with only one form of GLP-1, albiglutide — which was withdrawn from the market in 2017. The other six FDA-approved drugs didn’t show a statistically significant link.
Possible Trouble: Pulmonary Aspiration Under Sedation
Earlier this month, the FDA updated labeling for semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide to include a warning about the risk for aspiration during surgery. While there are no published studies, several case reports have appeared.
GLP-1 medications delay gastric emptying, so even though a patient may have fasted before surgery as usual, some food or liquid may remain. In response to this possibility, a group of professional medical societies issued guidelines for using these medications during the perioperative period. They include:
- Consideration of dosage, symptoms, and other medical conditions: The risk is higher during the escalation phase, and in general, higher doses mean higher risk.
- Potential discontinuation of GLP-1 usage when assessment shows an elevated risk.
- Assessment on the day of the procedure for possible delayed gastric emptying.
- Preoperative dietary modifications, which might include switching to a liquid diet.
Rare: Serious Effects
And then there are the outliers, the frightening issues that make headlines. On their own, none of these are common enough to affect consideration of GLP-1 use:
- Studies in rats suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer, but subsequent research has found no evidence.
- Colonic ischemia in association with tirzepatide.
- Acute pancreatitis leading to death in association with semaglutide.
- Speaking of pancreatitis, that clinical review of studies did find that both liraglutide and semaglutide led to an elevated risk for pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis. But the numbers were so small as to be insignificant — for instance, just 0.2% of patients experienced pancreatitis.
Benefits Outweigh Risks
When you lay out these side effects against the countless known benefits of weight loss and blood sugar management — the lower risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver disease, several cancers, and more — the advantages of GLP-1 drugs seem clear. Ultimately, of course, it’s the patient’s decision whether to begin and continue taking any medication for a chronic disease.
Apovian recommends having in-depth conversations before you write that first prescription – she compares the situation to using an antihypertensive drug. If your patient understands potential side effects, they’re more likely to maintain long-term compliance.
“We educate our patients how to use these drugs, indefinitely, if you want to maintain a lower, healthier body weight,” she said. “I don’t see patients who stop using them, but they’re out there. These are people desperate to lose weight, who aren’t given the education to understand we’re treating a disease. It’s not a matter of willpower.”
And once a patient starts taking a GLP-1, monitor them closely, with in-person visits rather than telehealth, while increasing the dosage. If they experience side effects, stay at that level until they ease. And if the patient has a good weight-loss response at a lower dose, stay there. Just because you can go higher, it doesn’t mean you should.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Just a few years after some TikTok videos spiked the demand, one in eight US adults has tried Ozempic (semaglutide) or another drug in its class. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications have revolutionized obesity medicine.
But they’re not without problems. In the early days of the social media craze, news reports often featured patients whose gastrointestinal side effects sent them to the emergency room (ER).
“It happened a lot then. Patients didn’t want to complain because they were losing weight, and they wound up in the ER with extreme constipation or a small bowel obstruction,” said Caroline Apovian, MD, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“But that’s not really happening now,” she added.
Research backs up her assertion: A recent clinical review of studies found that many patients still experience side effects, but only at a mild to moderate level, while the dosage increases — and the unpleasantness tapers with time. Roughly 7% of patients discontinue the medications due to these symptoms.
Here’s what the latest research shows about GLP-1s’ side effects.
Most Common: Gastrointestinal Issues
Depending on the symptom and the specific drug, anywhere from one third to one half of patients will experience some kind of stomach trouble.
- In that clinical review, which looked at studies of three GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) — semaglutide users fared comparatively worse.
- Nausea was reported most frequently — 44.2% of semaglutide users dealt with it, compared with 40.2% for liraglutide and 31% for tirzepatide. Diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting also struck one quarter to one third of semaglutide patients, and slightly fewer for the other two medications.
Apovian finds that careful dosage helps her patients avoid the worst effects.
“We don’t know who’s going to do well and who’s not,” she said. “We start slowly, and usually things go OK.”
If a patient does react poorly, she’ll hold off on increasing the dosage until they acclimate and advise using over-the-counter meds like MiraLAX to address the symptoms.
Few documented severe adverse gastro events appeared in the data, affecting less than 1% of liraglutide and tirzepatide patients and 2.6% of semaglutide users. The majority of these events were gallbladder-related.
Questions About Causation: Depression and Suicidality
About a year ago, a study used 18 years’ worth of data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine how often patients reported suicidal ideation and/or depression while using GLP-1 medications. Compared with metformin and insulin, researchers found disproportionate reporting by patients using semaglutide and liraglutide. Other GLP-1 medications didn’t show this effect. The researchers pointed out: These statistics don’t show causation — there’s no clear reason why those two medications were linked to more reports.
Further research has been more reassuring:
- Another study also used FAERS but looked only at data from 2018 to 2022, when usage of these drugs was ramping up, and found no link between suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and GLP-1.
- A recent cohort study, which looked at data from nearly 300,000 people, found that GLP-1 users aren’t at increased risk for death by suicide.
- Both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have issued statements that the evidence doesn’t support a causal association.
There are several factors at play here. People with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have depression to begin with. And more importantly, even if there is a link, causality remains unclear. For instance, patients who lose weight via bariatric surgery are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, and self-harm. These symptoms may be related to the weight loss itself, not the medications.
“Some people use food as something other than nutrition. They use food to soothe other psychological issues,” Apovian said. “When that’s taken away, the psychological issues are still there.”
In her practice, she’s seen the risk for mental health issues rise with more substantial weight loss — 50-100 pounds.
This lack of clarity regarding causation means it’s important to perform a detailed patient history before prescribing, so you can monitor more closely with preexisting psychiatric disorders.
Possible Link: Ocular Symptoms
Here, too, the research isn’t definitive but leans toward no clear association. Several studies have looked for a link between GLP-1 and vision-related issues:
- One examined FAERS data and network pharmacology and found semaglutide and lixisenatide were significantly associated with adverse events like blurred vision, visual impairment, and diabetic retinopathy.
- This summer, a cohort study of almost 17,000 people with diabetes or overweight/obesity suggested a link between semaglutide and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a common cause of blindness due to optic nerve damage. The study found “a substantially increased risk of NAION among individuals prescribed semaglutide relative to those prescribed other medications to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity or overweight.”
- But this month, another cohort study with 135,000 participants looked at NAION in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. It compared results with common non-GLP-1 medications and found just the opposite: No increased risk for NAION.
One drawback with all these studies is that they’re based on large databases rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When researchers focused on RCTs in a 2023 meta-analysis, they found a significant association with only one form of GLP-1, albiglutide — which was withdrawn from the market in 2017. The other six FDA-approved drugs didn’t show a statistically significant link.
Possible Trouble: Pulmonary Aspiration Under Sedation
Earlier this month, the FDA updated labeling for semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide to include a warning about the risk for aspiration during surgery. While there are no published studies, several case reports have appeared.
GLP-1 medications delay gastric emptying, so even though a patient may have fasted before surgery as usual, some food or liquid may remain. In response to this possibility, a group of professional medical societies issued guidelines for using these medications during the perioperative period. They include:
- Consideration of dosage, symptoms, and other medical conditions: The risk is higher during the escalation phase, and in general, higher doses mean higher risk.
- Potential discontinuation of GLP-1 usage when assessment shows an elevated risk.
- Assessment on the day of the procedure for possible delayed gastric emptying.
- Preoperative dietary modifications, which might include switching to a liquid diet.
Rare: Serious Effects
And then there are the outliers, the frightening issues that make headlines. On their own, none of these are common enough to affect consideration of GLP-1 use:
- Studies in rats suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer, but subsequent research has found no evidence.
- Colonic ischemia in association with tirzepatide.
- Acute pancreatitis leading to death in association with semaglutide.
- Speaking of pancreatitis, that clinical review of studies did find that both liraglutide and semaglutide led to an elevated risk for pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis. But the numbers were so small as to be insignificant — for instance, just 0.2% of patients experienced pancreatitis.
Benefits Outweigh Risks
When you lay out these side effects against the countless known benefits of weight loss and blood sugar management — the lower risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver disease, several cancers, and more — the advantages of GLP-1 drugs seem clear. Ultimately, of course, it’s the patient’s decision whether to begin and continue taking any medication for a chronic disease.
Apovian recommends having in-depth conversations before you write that first prescription – she compares the situation to using an antihypertensive drug. If your patient understands potential side effects, they’re more likely to maintain long-term compliance.
“We educate our patients how to use these drugs, indefinitely, if you want to maintain a lower, healthier body weight,” she said. “I don’t see patients who stop using them, but they’re out there. These are people desperate to lose weight, who aren’t given the education to understand we’re treating a disease. It’s not a matter of willpower.”
And once a patient starts taking a GLP-1, monitor them closely, with in-person visits rather than telehealth, while increasing the dosage. If they experience side effects, stay at that level until they ease. And if the patient has a good weight-loss response at a lower dose, stay there. Just because you can go higher, it doesn’t mean you should.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Just a few years after some TikTok videos spiked the demand, one in eight US adults has tried Ozempic (semaglutide) or another drug in its class. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist medications have revolutionized obesity medicine.
But they’re not without problems. In the early days of the social media craze, news reports often featured patients whose gastrointestinal side effects sent them to the emergency room (ER).
“It happened a lot then. Patients didn’t want to complain because they were losing weight, and they wound up in the ER with extreme constipation or a small bowel obstruction,” said Caroline Apovian, MD, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“But that’s not really happening now,” she added.
Research backs up her assertion: A recent clinical review of studies found that many patients still experience side effects, but only at a mild to moderate level, while the dosage increases — and the unpleasantness tapers with time. Roughly 7% of patients discontinue the medications due to these symptoms.
Here’s what the latest research shows about GLP-1s’ side effects.
Most Common: Gastrointestinal Issues
Depending on the symptom and the specific drug, anywhere from one third to one half of patients will experience some kind of stomach trouble.
- In that clinical review, which looked at studies of three GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus), liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) — semaglutide users fared comparatively worse.
- Nausea was reported most frequently — 44.2% of semaglutide users dealt with it, compared with 40.2% for liraglutide and 31% for tirzepatide. Diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting also struck one quarter to one third of semaglutide patients, and slightly fewer for the other two medications.
Apovian finds that careful dosage helps her patients avoid the worst effects.
“We don’t know who’s going to do well and who’s not,” she said. “We start slowly, and usually things go OK.”
If a patient does react poorly, she’ll hold off on increasing the dosage until they acclimate and advise using over-the-counter meds like MiraLAX to address the symptoms.
Few documented severe adverse gastro events appeared in the data, affecting less than 1% of liraglutide and tirzepatide patients and 2.6% of semaglutide users. The majority of these events were gallbladder-related.
Questions About Causation: Depression and Suicidality
About a year ago, a study used 18 years’ worth of data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to examine how often patients reported suicidal ideation and/or depression while using GLP-1 medications. Compared with metformin and insulin, researchers found disproportionate reporting by patients using semaglutide and liraglutide. Other GLP-1 medications didn’t show this effect. The researchers pointed out: These statistics don’t show causation — there’s no clear reason why those two medications were linked to more reports.
Further research has been more reassuring:
- Another study also used FAERS but looked only at data from 2018 to 2022, when usage of these drugs was ramping up, and found no link between suicidal or self-injurious behaviors and GLP-1.
- A recent cohort study, which looked at data from nearly 300,000 people, found that GLP-1 users aren’t at increased risk for death by suicide.
- Both the FDA and the European Medicines Agency have issued statements that the evidence doesn’t support a causal association.
There are several factors at play here. People with obesity and diabetes are more likely to have depression to begin with. And more importantly, even if there is a link, causality remains unclear. For instance, patients who lose weight via bariatric surgery are at increased risk for depression, substance abuse, and self-harm. These symptoms may be related to the weight loss itself, not the medications.
“Some people use food as something other than nutrition. They use food to soothe other psychological issues,” Apovian said. “When that’s taken away, the psychological issues are still there.”
In her practice, she’s seen the risk for mental health issues rise with more substantial weight loss — 50-100 pounds.
This lack of clarity regarding causation means it’s important to perform a detailed patient history before prescribing, so you can monitor more closely with preexisting psychiatric disorders.
Possible Link: Ocular Symptoms
Here, too, the research isn’t definitive but leans toward no clear association. Several studies have looked for a link between GLP-1 and vision-related issues:
- One examined FAERS data and network pharmacology and found semaglutide and lixisenatide were significantly associated with adverse events like blurred vision, visual impairment, and diabetic retinopathy.
- This summer, a cohort study of almost 17,000 people with diabetes or overweight/obesity suggested a link between semaglutide and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a common cause of blindness due to optic nerve damage. The study found “a substantially increased risk of NAION among individuals prescribed semaglutide relative to those prescribed other medications to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity or overweight.”
- But this month, another cohort study with 135,000 participants looked at NAION in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. It compared results with common non-GLP-1 medications and found just the opposite: No increased risk for NAION.
One drawback with all these studies is that they’re based on large databases rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). When researchers focused on RCTs in a 2023 meta-analysis, they found a significant association with only one form of GLP-1, albiglutide — which was withdrawn from the market in 2017. The other six FDA-approved drugs didn’t show a statistically significant link.
Possible Trouble: Pulmonary Aspiration Under Sedation
Earlier this month, the FDA updated labeling for semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide to include a warning about the risk for aspiration during surgery. While there are no published studies, several case reports have appeared.
GLP-1 medications delay gastric emptying, so even though a patient may have fasted before surgery as usual, some food or liquid may remain. In response to this possibility, a group of professional medical societies issued guidelines for using these medications during the perioperative period. They include:
- Consideration of dosage, symptoms, and other medical conditions: The risk is higher during the escalation phase, and in general, higher doses mean higher risk.
- Potential discontinuation of GLP-1 usage when assessment shows an elevated risk.
- Assessment on the day of the procedure for possible delayed gastric emptying.
- Preoperative dietary modifications, which might include switching to a liquid diet.
Rare: Serious Effects
And then there are the outliers, the frightening issues that make headlines. On their own, none of these are common enough to affect consideration of GLP-1 use:
- Studies in rats suggested an increased risk for thyroid cancer, but subsequent research has found no evidence.
- Colonic ischemia in association with tirzepatide.
- Acute pancreatitis leading to death in association with semaglutide.
- Speaking of pancreatitis, that clinical review of studies did find that both liraglutide and semaglutide led to an elevated risk for pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis. But the numbers were so small as to be insignificant — for instance, just 0.2% of patients experienced pancreatitis.
Benefits Outweigh Risks
When you lay out these side effects against the countless known benefits of weight loss and blood sugar management — the lower risk for high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver disease, several cancers, and more — the advantages of GLP-1 drugs seem clear. Ultimately, of course, it’s the patient’s decision whether to begin and continue taking any medication for a chronic disease.
Apovian recommends having in-depth conversations before you write that first prescription – she compares the situation to using an antihypertensive drug. If your patient understands potential side effects, they’re more likely to maintain long-term compliance.
“We educate our patients how to use these drugs, indefinitely, if you want to maintain a lower, healthier body weight,” she said. “I don’t see patients who stop using them, but they’re out there. These are people desperate to lose weight, who aren’t given the education to understand we’re treating a disease. It’s not a matter of willpower.”
And once a patient starts taking a GLP-1, monitor them closely, with in-person visits rather than telehealth, while increasing the dosage. If they experience side effects, stay at that level until they ease. And if the patient has a good weight-loss response at a lower dose, stay there. Just because you can go higher, it doesn’t mean you should.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Deprescribe Low-Value Meds to Reduce Polypharmacy Harms
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.
In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”
Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs
The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.
But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.
Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.
“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.
Tapering Opioids
Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.
Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”
In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.
Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.
Deprescribing Benzodiazepines
Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.
The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.
Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.
Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.
Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.
In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”
Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs
The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.
But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.
Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.
“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.
Tapering Opioids
Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.
Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”
In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.
Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.
Deprescribing Benzodiazepines
Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.
The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.
Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.
Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.
Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.
In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”
Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs
The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.
But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.
Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.
“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.
Tapering Opioids
Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.
Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”
In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.
Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.
Deprescribing Benzodiazepines
Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.
The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.
Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.
Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.
Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FMF 2024
Could Probiotics Tuned to Reduce Intestinal Urate Counter Gout?
Efforts to combat hyperuricemia may find help from gut microbes, according to Dylan Dodd, MD, PhD, who spoke at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.
Dodd is an assistant professor of pathology and microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, where he studies novel metabolic pathways in microbes. “The idea is that we can leverage these novel pathways that microbes have as therapeutics to promote human health, and in particular for this meeting today, we’re focused on hyperuricemia and how microbes that break down purines may actually have a role as urate-lowering therapies,” Dodd said during his presentation.
Specifically, he highlighted the fact that some microbes found in the gut break down purines as a food source, producing both energy and molecular building blocks for their own use. Dietary purines, left intact, can otherwise be absorbed and metabolized by the body to produce urate.
Nucleic acids like DNA and RNA in the diet are first broken down by enzymes produced in the pancreas, resulting in purine nucleosides, which in turn are believed to be the source of purines absorbed in the small intestine and eventually into circulation, according to Dodd. “I really view urate in the intestine as being in equilibrium between being secreted into the lumen but also being reabsorbed, and specifically, as it pertains to microbes in the gut. If the microbes degrade the urate, then it will limit its reabsorption, and that could increase net excretion,” Dodd said.
There is evidence that some strains of Lactobacillus species, which are the most important group in the human gut, can metabolize purine nucleosides, he said. In recent years, researchers have screened for Lactobacillus species capable of metabolizing purine nucleosides. The research shows some strain-to-strain variation, but most are proprietary, making it impossible to conduct follow-up research. A small number of human trials have suggested efficacy, but they have generally been conducted in few patients with mixed results. “Overall, I think it’s promising that these lactobacilli probiotics could potentially be used as urate-lowering therapies,” Dodd said.
Aside from direct metabolism of purines, Dodd’s group has identified an additional pathway that some microbes can use to break down urate into short-chain fatty acids. His group cultured various purine nucleosides with various bacterial strains, including two Lactobacillus strains, under anaerobic conditions. The Lactobacillus strains did not degrade urate, but some bacterial species did. The group also found that Lactobacillus could convert nucleosides, including those derived from purines, into the smaller nucleobase compounds, but they did not consume the resultant purines. Some other types of bacteria consumed all purines “voraciously,” according to Dodd, and his team is working to identify the bacterial genetic pathways that drive the metabolic pathways.
Such studies may open up various therapeutic pathways, he said. One is to employ Lactobacillus probiotics to convert purine nucleosides to their nucleobases, which could reduce absorption in the small intestine. Other bacteria could potentially be used to convert urate produced by paracellular reabsorption to short-chain fatty acids, which have potential benefits through their anti-inflammatory properties. Finally, probiotics could be engineered to degrade urate produced in the intestine.
Dodd noted that probiotics would have the advantage of high patient acceptance and are generally regarded as safe. Some existing products might have purine-degrading capabilities but haven’t been tested, he said. However, there is strain-to-strain variation and the probiotic formulas would likely need to be optimized to reduce nucleobases. On the other hand, bacteria that degrade urate are likely safe since they have been found in the guts of healthy individuals. However, there are still potential safety concerns, and it is unknown if they could withstand the harsh conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract or if they would remain active even in the presence of oxygen found in the small intestine, he said.
During the Q&A period after his talk, Dodd was asked whether fructose consumption could suppress the function of anaerobic bacteria that naturally degrade purine. “When people talk about fructose-induced hyperuricemia, they talk about the ATP degradation in fructose metabolism in the liver or small intestine, [but] they never talk about this potential pathway in the gut,” the questioner said.
Dodd responded that his group found that some carbohydrates suppress urate degradation in some bacterial strains. “It’s certainly a possible mechanism that increased fructose intake could suppress microbial urate degradation in the gut, and that could contribute to hyperuricemia, but obviously more studies need to be done,” he said.
Another audience member wondered if antibiotic use could be tied to gout risk and whether serum urate levels might rise after antibiotic use. “Do you have any data on serum urate before and after antibiotic use, where you might expect to see changes which might support your hypothesis?” she asked. Dodd said that the group had done a retrospective analysis of data from Stanford’s medical records and did not find a change in serum urate after antibiotic exposure. However, a controlled feeding study of healthy individuals who later received antibiotics showed a large increase in urate levels, but the study did not include plasma samples. “It’s a really good question, and we hope to be able to follow that up,” he said.
Dodd disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Efforts to combat hyperuricemia may find help from gut microbes, according to Dylan Dodd, MD, PhD, who spoke at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.
Dodd is an assistant professor of pathology and microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, where he studies novel metabolic pathways in microbes. “The idea is that we can leverage these novel pathways that microbes have as therapeutics to promote human health, and in particular for this meeting today, we’re focused on hyperuricemia and how microbes that break down purines may actually have a role as urate-lowering therapies,” Dodd said during his presentation.
Specifically, he highlighted the fact that some microbes found in the gut break down purines as a food source, producing both energy and molecular building blocks for their own use. Dietary purines, left intact, can otherwise be absorbed and metabolized by the body to produce urate.
Nucleic acids like DNA and RNA in the diet are first broken down by enzymes produced in the pancreas, resulting in purine nucleosides, which in turn are believed to be the source of purines absorbed in the small intestine and eventually into circulation, according to Dodd. “I really view urate in the intestine as being in equilibrium between being secreted into the lumen but also being reabsorbed, and specifically, as it pertains to microbes in the gut. If the microbes degrade the urate, then it will limit its reabsorption, and that could increase net excretion,” Dodd said.
There is evidence that some strains of Lactobacillus species, which are the most important group in the human gut, can metabolize purine nucleosides, he said. In recent years, researchers have screened for Lactobacillus species capable of metabolizing purine nucleosides. The research shows some strain-to-strain variation, but most are proprietary, making it impossible to conduct follow-up research. A small number of human trials have suggested efficacy, but they have generally been conducted in few patients with mixed results. “Overall, I think it’s promising that these lactobacilli probiotics could potentially be used as urate-lowering therapies,” Dodd said.
Aside from direct metabolism of purines, Dodd’s group has identified an additional pathway that some microbes can use to break down urate into short-chain fatty acids. His group cultured various purine nucleosides with various bacterial strains, including two Lactobacillus strains, under anaerobic conditions. The Lactobacillus strains did not degrade urate, but some bacterial species did. The group also found that Lactobacillus could convert nucleosides, including those derived from purines, into the smaller nucleobase compounds, but they did not consume the resultant purines. Some other types of bacteria consumed all purines “voraciously,” according to Dodd, and his team is working to identify the bacterial genetic pathways that drive the metabolic pathways.
Such studies may open up various therapeutic pathways, he said. One is to employ Lactobacillus probiotics to convert purine nucleosides to their nucleobases, which could reduce absorption in the small intestine. Other bacteria could potentially be used to convert urate produced by paracellular reabsorption to short-chain fatty acids, which have potential benefits through their anti-inflammatory properties. Finally, probiotics could be engineered to degrade urate produced in the intestine.
Dodd noted that probiotics would have the advantage of high patient acceptance and are generally regarded as safe. Some existing products might have purine-degrading capabilities but haven’t been tested, he said. However, there is strain-to-strain variation and the probiotic formulas would likely need to be optimized to reduce nucleobases. On the other hand, bacteria that degrade urate are likely safe since they have been found in the guts of healthy individuals. However, there are still potential safety concerns, and it is unknown if they could withstand the harsh conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract or if they would remain active even in the presence of oxygen found in the small intestine, he said.
During the Q&A period after his talk, Dodd was asked whether fructose consumption could suppress the function of anaerobic bacteria that naturally degrade purine. “When people talk about fructose-induced hyperuricemia, they talk about the ATP degradation in fructose metabolism in the liver or small intestine, [but] they never talk about this potential pathway in the gut,” the questioner said.
Dodd responded that his group found that some carbohydrates suppress urate degradation in some bacterial strains. “It’s certainly a possible mechanism that increased fructose intake could suppress microbial urate degradation in the gut, and that could contribute to hyperuricemia, but obviously more studies need to be done,” he said.
Another audience member wondered if antibiotic use could be tied to gout risk and whether serum urate levels might rise after antibiotic use. “Do you have any data on serum urate before and after antibiotic use, where you might expect to see changes which might support your hypothesis?” she asked. Dodd said that the group had done a retrospective analysis of data from Stanford’s medical records and did not find a change in serum urate after antibiotic exposure. However, a controlled feeding study of healthy individuals who later received antibiotics showed a large increase in urate levels, but the study did not include plasma samples. “It’s a really good question, and we hope to be able to follow that up,” he said.
Dodd disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Efforts to combat hyperuricemia may find help from gut microbes, according to Dylan Dodd, MD, PhD, who spoke at the annual research symposium of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network.
Dodd is an assistant professor of pathology and microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, where he studies novel metabolic pathways in microbes. “The idea is that we can leverage these novel pathways that microbes have as therapeutics to promote human health, and in particular for this meeting today, we’re focused on hyperuricemia and how microbes that break down purines may actually have a role as urate-lowering therapies,” Dodd said during his presentation.
Specifically, he highlighted the fact that some microbes found in the gut break down purines as a food source, producing both energy and molecular building blocks for their own use. Dietary purines, left intact, can otherwise be absorbed and metabolized by the body to produce urate.
Nucleic acids like DNA and RNA in the diet are first broken down by enzymes produced in the pancreas, resulting in purine nucleosides, which in turn are believed to be the source of purines absorbed in the small intestine and eventually into circulation, according to Dodd. “I really view urate in the intestine as being in equilibrium between being secreted into the lumen but also being reabsorbed, and specifically, as it pertains to microbes in the gut. If the microbes degrade the urate, then it will limit its reabsorption, and that could increase net excretion,” Dodd said.
There is evidence that some strains of Lactobacillus species, which are the most important group in the human gut, can metabolize purine nucleosides, he said. In recent years, researchers have screened for Lactobacillus species capable of metabolizing purine nucleosides. The research shows some strain-to-strain variation, but most are proprietary, making it impossible to conduct follow-up research. A small number of human trials have suggested efficacy, but they have generally been conducted in few patients with mixed results. “Overall, I think it’s promising that these lactobacilli probiotics could potentially be used as urate-lowering therapies,” Dodd said.
Aside from direct metabolism of purines, Dodd’s group has identified an additional pathway that some microbes can use to break down urate into short-chain fatty acids. His group cultured various purine nucleosides with various bacterial strains, including two Lactobacillus strains, under anaerobic conditions. The Lactobacillus strains did not degrade urate, but some bacterial species did. The group also found that Lactobacillus could convert nucleosides, including those derived from purines, into the smaller nucleobase compounds, but they did not consume the resultant purines. Some other types of bacteria consumed all purines “voraciously,” according to Dodd, and his team is working to identify the bacterial genetic pathways that drive the metabolic pathways.
Such studies may open up various therapeutic pathways, he said. One is to employ Lactobacillus probiotics to convert purine nucleosides to their nucleobases, which could reduce absorption in the small intestine. Other bacteria could potentially be used to convert urate produced by paracellular reabsorption to short-chain fatty acids, which have potential benefits through their anti-inflammatory properties. Finally, probiotics could be engineered to degrade urate produced in the intestine.
Dodd noted that probiotics would have the advantage of high patient acceptance and are generally regarded as safe. Some existing products might have purine-degrading capabilities but haven’t been tested, he said. However, there is strain-to-strain variation and the probiotic formulas would likely need to be optimized to reduce nucleobases. On the other hand, bacteria that degrade urate are likely safe since they have been found in the guts of healthy individuals. However, there are still potential safety concerns, and it is unknown if they could withstand the harsh conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract or if they would remain active even in the presence of oxygen found in the small intestine, he said.
During the Q&A period after his talk, Dodd was asked whether fructose consumption could suppress the function of anaerobic bacteria that naturally degrade purine. “When people talk about fructose-induced hyperuricemia, they talk about the ATP degradation in fructose metabolism in the liver or small intestine, [but] they never talk about this potential pathway in the gut,” the questioner said.
Dodd responded that his group found that some carbohydrates suppress urate degradation in some bacterial strains. “It’s certainly a possible mechanism that increased fructose intake could suppress microbial urate degradation in the gut, and that could contribute to hyperuricemia, but obviously more studies need to be done,” he said.
Another audience member wondered if antibiotic use could be tied to gout risk and whether serum urate levels might rise after antibiotic use. “Do you have any data on serum urate before and after antibiotic use, where you might expect to see changes which might support your hypothesis?” she asked. Dodd said that the group had done a retrospective analysis of data from Stanford’s medical records and did not find a change in serum urate after antibiotic exposure. However, a controlled feeding study of healthy individuals who later received antibiotics showed a large increase in urate levels, but the study did not include plasma samples. “It’s a really good question, and we hope to be able to follow that up,” he said.
Dodd disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM G-CAN 2024
FDA Approves Bispecific HER2 Antibody for Biliary Tract Cancer
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This approval makes the bispecific antibody the first HER2-targeted treatment to carry the indication.
Zanidatamab binds two separate regions on the HER2 cell surface protein, crosslinking neighboring HER2 proteins, blocking HER2 signaling, and inducing cytotoxic immune responses.
The FDA simultaneously announced that it has also approved VENTANA PATHWAY anti–HER2/neu (4B5) Rabbit Monoclonal Primary Antibody (Ventana Medical Systems, Inc./Roche Diagnostics) as a companion diagnostic device to aid in identifying patients with BTC who may be eligible for treatment with zanidatamab.
Zanidatamab Trial Results
The approval of zanidatamab was based on the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial— which was open-label, multicenter, and single-arm — involving 62 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive (IHC3+) BTC. In this trial, zanidatamab 20 mg/kg was administered every 2 weeks to patients who had received gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy previously but not a HER2-targeted therapy.
The objective response rate was 52%, and the median duration of response was 14.9 months, according to the statement from the FDA.
The life expectancy for advanced BTC treated in the second line with standard chemotherapy is approximately 6-9 months, according to Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
Boxed Warning and Adverse Events
The prescribing information contains a boxed warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The most common adverse reactions reported in at least 20% of patients who received zanidatamab were diarrhea, infusion-related reactions, abdominal pain, and fatigue.
The recommended zanidatamab dose is 20 mg/kg, administered as an intravenous infusion once every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals’ application was granted priority review, breakthrough therapy designation, and orphan drug designation.
An ongoing phase 3 trial, HERIZON-BTC-302, is testing zanidatamab in combination with standard-of-care therapy in the first-line setting for advanced or metastatic HER2-positive BTC. The bispecific antibody is also being developed for HER2-positive advanced/metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.