Nephrology

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 1 diabetes who received transplanted islets along with a kidney transplant had significantly reduced mortality and transplant failure risks, compared with those who received kidney alone and continued to use insulin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was all patients with type 1 diabetes in France who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2017.
• Among 2,393 patients, 327 were eligible for islet transplantation, including 47 who were actually transplanted with islets.
• The subjects were matched for factors including year of transplantation, recipient age, kidney function, and hemoglobin A1c.

TAKEAWAY:

• Those receiving islets along with the kidney transplant had a 53% lower risk of graft failure, compared with the kidney-alone group.
• Those receiving islet transplantation had a significantly higher estimated life expectancy during 10-year follow-up (9.61 vs. 8.85 years).
• At 1 year post islet transplant, there was an estimated 89.4% probability of graft survival and a 70.2% probability of achieving independence from insulin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although islet transplantation has previously been shown to improve glycemic control, compared with conventional insulin therapy in recent clinical trials, little was known about its long-term impact on patient prognosis until now. ... These results are exciting and provide hope for people living with type 1 diabetes and kidney transplants.”

SOURCE:

Presented Sept. 17, 2023, at the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Congress 2023 by Mehdi Maanaoui, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Lille (France).

LIMITATIONS:

Observational, potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Maanaoui reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 1 diabetes who received transplanted islets along with a kidney transplant had significantly reduced mortality and transplant failure risks, compared with those who received kidney alone and continued to use insulin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was all patients with type 1 diabetes in France who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2017.
• Among 2,393 patients, 327 were eligible for islet transplantation, including 47 who were actually transplanted with islets.
• The subjects were matched for factors including year of transplantation, recipient age, kidney function, and hemoglobin A1c.

TAKEAWAY:

• Those receiving islets along with the kidney transplant had a 53% lower risk of graft failure, compared with the kidney-alone group.
• Those receiving islet transplantation had a significantly higher estimated life expectancy during 10-year follow-up (9.61 vs. 8.85 years).
• At 1 year post islet transplant, there was an estimated 89.4% probability of graft survival and a 70.2% probability of achieving independence from insulin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although islet transplantation has previously been shown to improve glycemic control, compared with conventional insulin therapy in recent clinical trials, little was known about its long-term impact on patient prognosis until now. ... These results are exciting and provide hope for people living with type 1 diabetes and kidney transplants.”

SOURCE:

Presented Sept. 17, 2023, at the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Congress 2023 by Mehdi Maanaoui, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Lille (France).

LIMITATIONS:

Observational, potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Maanaoui reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 1 diabetes who received transplanted islets along with a kidney transplant had significantly reduced mortality and transplant failure risks, compared with those who received kidney alone and continued to use insulin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was all patients with type 1 diabetes in France who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2017.
• Among 2,393 patients, 327 were eligible for islet transplantation, including 47 who were actually transplanted with islets.
• The subjects were matched for factors including year of transplantation, recipient age, kidney function, and hemoglobin A1c.

TAKEAWAY:

• Those receiving islets along with the kidney transplant had a 53% lower risk of graft failure, compared with the kidney-alone group.
• Those receiving islet transplantation had a significantly higher estimated life expectancy during 10-year follow-up (9.61 vs. 8.85 years).
• At 1 year post islet transplant, there was an estimated 89.4% probability of graft survival and a 70.2% probability of achieving independence from insulin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although islet transplantation has previously been shown to improve glycemic control, compared with conventional insulin therapy in recent clinical trials, little was known about its long-term impact on patient prognosis until now. ... These results are exciting and provide hope for people living with type 1 diabetes and kidney transplants.”

SOURCE:

Presented Sept. 17, 2023, at the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Congress 2023 by Mehdi Maanaoui, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Lille (France).

LIMITATIONS:

Observational, potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Maanaoui reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

A dearth of kidney stone specialists is colliding with a rise in the number of patients who need specialized care.

While increasing the number of nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is necessary, nonspecialists need to play a larger role in recognizing and preventing kidney stones.

Primary care and emergency department physicians can be the front lines of counseling patients who do not have underlying genetic causes of kidney stones on how to prevent a recurrence, according to Irina Jaeger, MD, a urologist at University Hospitals and an assistant professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland. 

“A lot of this care can be implemented by our primary care physicians, such as counseling on decreasing sodium in the diet and increasing fluid intake, which benefits so many different health conditions as well as stones,” said Gregory E. Tasian, MD, MSCE, an attending pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If we can think about this holistically, we can really make strides.” 
 

Focus on prevention

Taking a holistic approach, Dr. Tasian added, will require rethinking how health teams approach patient care and manage kidney stones. 

“We think of stones as episodic events that are painful, and then pass,” he said. “But it’s really a disorder of mineral metabolism.”

Understanding these episodes as a chronic disease can also explain why nephrolithiasis often goes hand in hand with higher instances of heart attack and stroke, hypertension,  and bone breaks, he added.

Simple measures such as staying hydrated and consuming citrate in the form of lemon water or lemonade can help patients prevent recurring kidney stones, Dr. Jaeger said.

But patients who have had a stone also need to see a specialist to rule out any underlying causes. Kidney stones are routinely viewed as episodic events that don’t pose much of a health threat, but between 30% and 50% of people diagnosed with stones will experience a recurrence within 5 years. Educating patients on how they can prevent future episodes is a crucial part of care. 

“Even if they are passing the stones on their own without surgery, they should really be evaluated by a urologist or a nephrologist,” Dr. Jaeger said. 

David S. Goldfarb, MD, clinical director of the division of nephrology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that access to nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is a critical piece of prevention. While urologists can treat stones, nephrologists get to the bottom of why the stones occurred in the first place and help patients prevent further stones from forming.

“The majority of urologists in the U.S. don’t do much in regard to prevention,” he said. “There needs to be more nephrologists.” 

Kidney stones now appear to be increasingly common in patient populations that previously did not have the condition. 

A study published in 2016 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology found that the annual incidence of kidney stones increased 16% from 1997 to 2012, with the biggest increase seen among teenagers. Stones were 52% more common among girls and women than among men, but the condition is also becoming more common in men starting at age 25. Meanwhile, Black Americans of all ages saw greater rates of kidney stone development than their White counterparts. 

Fewer residents are choosing to specialize in nephrology, with a decrease in the choice of fellowship of 50% from 2009 to 2019, according to a 2023 report by the American Society of Nephrology.

A 2019 survey of nearly 4,200 residents found that only 60% of nephrology fellowship positions were filled in 2018, and the majority of those residents reported a lack of interest in the kidney as being the most critical factor in not selecting the specialty. Others reported lack of exposure to nephrology overall.
 

Diagnosing the root cause

Getting to the root cause of how further kidney stones can be prevented usually requires a nephrologist, according to Dr. Jaeger.

“As a urologist, 90% of what we do is surgery,” she said.

Although urologists are trained in analyzing 24-hour urine tests, which can reveal risks that can be addressed by preventive changes, many urologists tap a specialized nephrologist, who may analyze the samples with a keener eye. 

“When individuals pass a stone, fewer than 10% seek care with a specialist after that and that’s a missed opportunity to prevent future stones,” Dr. Tasian said. 

Not all nephrologists specialize in stones, but they may be better equipped to recognize when a patient needs to see someone who does. Failing to involve a nephrologist who specializes in kidney stones can have grave consequences for patient health. 

Dr. Goldfarb is currently caring for a patient with a kidney transplant that had begun to lose function. Clinicians who originally cared for the patient took a kidney biopsy, which showed fragments of calcium oxalate, a common type of kidney stone, in her native kidneys.

After receiving a kidney transplant, her health began to decline again and a second biopsy found that the new kidney was forming the same type of stones. Her nephrologist knew this meant she likely had a genetic disorder and referred her to Dr. Goldfarb, who specializes in underlying genetic causes of kidney stones. A genetic test revealed that the patient had primary hyperoxaluria. 

“She would have been treated completely differently if that had been recognized as the cause of her original kidney disease,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “Now her kidney transplant is getting kidney stones and I’m working with her to prevent that.”

Under Dr. Goldfarb, the patient will have access to a new experimental drug, called nedosiran, currently in clinical trials. It is specifically for primary hyperoxaluria. 

“The kidney doctor that made the diagnosis correctly and referred her to me isn’t a kidney stone specialist; he is a general nephrologist who has taken an interest in the topic of kidney stones, recognizing there is sometimes some nuance and specialty of issues related to this,” Dr. Goldfarb said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A dearth of kidney stone specialists is colliding with a rise in the number of patients who need specialized care.

While increasing the number of nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is necessary, nonspecialists need to play a larger role in recognizing and preventing kidney stones.

Primary care and emergency department physicians can be the front lines of counseling patients who do not have underlying genetic causes of kidney stones on how to prevent a recurrence, according to Irina Jaeger, MD, a urologist at University Hospitals and an assistant professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland. 

“A lot of this care can be implemented by our primary care physicians, such as counseling on decreasing sodium in the diet and increasing fluid intake, which benefits so many different health conditions as well as stones,” said Gregory E. Tasian, MD, MSCE, an attending pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If we can think about this holistically, we can really make strides.” 
 

Focus on prevention

Taking a holistic approach, Dr. Tasian added, will require rethinking how health teams approach patient care and manage kidney stones. 

“We think of stones as episodic events that are painful, and then pass,” he said. “But it’s really a disorder of mineral metabolism.”

Understanding these episodes as a chronic disease can also explain why nephrolithiasis often goes hand in hand with higher instances of heart attack and stroke, hypertension,  and bone breaks, he added.

Simple measures such as staying hydrated and consuming citrate in the form of lemon water or lemonade can help patients prevent recurring kidney stones, Dr. Jaeger said.

But patients who have had a stone also need to see a specialist to rule out any underlying causes. Kidney stones are routinely viewed as episodic events that don’t pose much of a health threat, but between 30% and 50% of people diagnosed with stones will experience a recurrence within 5 years. Educating patients on how they can prevent future episodes is a crucial part of care. 

“Even if they are passing the stones on their own without surgery, they should really be evaluated by a urologist or a nephrologist,” Dr. Jaeger said. 

David S. Goldfarb, MD, clinical director of the division of nephrology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that access to nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is a critical piece of prevention. While urologists can treat stones, nephrologists get to the bottom of why the stones occurred in the first place and help patients prevent further stones from forming.

“The majority of urologists in the U.S. don’t do much in regard to prevention,” he said. “There needs to be more nephrologists.” 

Kidney stones now appear to be increasingly common in patient populations that previously did not have the condition. 

A study published in 2016 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology found that the annual incidence of kidney stones increased 16% from 1997 to 2012, with the biggest increase seen among teenagers. Stones were 52% more common among girls and women than among men, but the condition is also becoming more common in men starting at age 25. Meanwhile, Black Americans of all ages saw greater rates of kidney stone development than their White counterparts. 

Fewer residents are choosing to specialize in nephrology, with a decrease in the choice of fellowship of 50% from 2009 to 2019, according to a 2023 report by the American Society of Nephrology.

A 2019 survey of nearly 4,200 residents found that only 60% of nephrology fellowship positions were filled in 2018, and the majority of those residents reported a lack of interest in the kidney as being the most critical factor in not selecting the specialty. Others reported lack of exposure to nephrology overall.
 

Diagnosing the root cause

Getting to the root cause of how further kidney stones can be prevented usually requires a nephrologist, according to Dr. Jaeger.

“As a urologist, 90% of what we do is surgery,” she said.

Although urologists are trained in analyzing 24-hour urine tests, which can reveal risks that can be addressed by preventive changes, many urologists tap a specialized nephrologist, who may analyze the samples with a keener eye. 

“When individuals pass a stone, fewer than 10% seek care with a specialist after that and that’s a missed opportunity to prevent future stones,” Dr. Tasian said. 

Not all nephrologists specialize in stones, but they may be better equipped to recognize when a patient needs to see someone who does. Failing to involve a nephrologist who specializes in kidney stones can have grave consequences for patient health. 

Dr. Goldfarb is currently caring for a patient with a kidney transplant that had begun to lose function. Clinicians who originally cared for the patient took a kidney biopsy, which showed fragments of calcium oxalate, a common type of kidney stone, in her native kidneys.

After receiving a kidney transplant, her health began to decline again and a second biopsy found that the new kidney was forming the same type of stones. Her nephrologist knew this meant she likely had a genetic disorder and referred her to Dr. Goldfarb, who specializes in underlying genetic causes of kidney stones. A genetic test revealed that the patient had primary hyperoxaluria. 

“She would have been treated completely differently if that had been recognized as the cause of her original kidney disease,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “Now her kidney transplant is getting kidney stones and I’m working with her to prevent that.”

Under Dr. Goldfarb, the patient will have access to a new experimental drug, called nedosiran, currently in clinical trials. It is specifically for primary hyperoxaluria. 

“The kidney doctor that made the diagnosis correctly and referred her to me isn’t a kidney stone specialist; he is a general nephrologist who has taken an interest in the topic of kidney stones, recognizing there is sometimes some nuance and specialty of issues related to this,” Dr. Goldfarb said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A dearth of kidney stone specialists is colliding with a rise in the number of patients who need specialized care.

While increasing the number of nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is necessary, nonspecialists need to play a larger role in recognizing and preventing kidney stones.

Primary care and emergency department physicians can be the front lines of counseling patients who do not have underlying genetic causes of kidney stones on how to prevent a recurrence, according to Irina Jaeger, MD, a urologist at University Hospitals and an assistant professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland. 

“A lot of this care can be implemented by our primary care physicians, such as counseling on decreasing sodium in the diet and increasing fluid intake, which benefits so many different health conditions as well as stones,” said Gregory E. Tasian, MD, MSCE, an attending pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If we can think about this holistically, we can really make strides.” 
 

Focus on prevention

Taking a holistic approach, Dr. Tasian added, will require rethinking how health teams approach patient care and manage kidney stones. 

“We think of stones as episodic events that are painful, and then pass,” he said. “But it’s really a disorder of mineral metabolism.”

Understanding these episodes as a chronic disease can also explain why nephrolithiasis often goes hand in hand with higher instances of heart attack and stroke, hypertension,  and bone breaks, he added.

Simple measures such as staying hydrated and consuming citrate in the form of lemon water or lemonade can help patients prevent recurring kidney stones, Dr. Jaeger said.

But patients who have had a stone also need to see a specialist to rule out any underlying causes. Kidney stones are routinely viewed as episodic events that don’t pose much of a health threat, but between 30% and 50% of people diagnosed with stones will experience a recurrence within 5 years. Educating patients on how they can prevent future episodes is a crucial part of care. 

“Even if they are passing the stones on their own without surgery, they should really be evaluated by a urologist or a nephrologist,” Dr. Jaeger said. 

David S. Goldfarb, MD, clinical director of the division of nephrology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that access to nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is a critical piece of prevention. While urologists can treat stones, nephrologists get to the bottom of why the stones occurred in the first place and help patients prevent further stones from forming.

“The majority of urologists in the U.S. don’t do much in regard to prevention,” he said. “There needs to be more nephrologists.” 

Kidney stones now appear to be increasingly common in patient populations that previously did not have the condition. 

A study published in 2016 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology found that the annual incidence of kidney stones increased 16% from 1997 to 2012, with the biggest increase seen among teenagers. Stones were 52% more common among girls and women than among men, but the condition is also becoming more common in men starting at age 25. Meanwhile, Black Americans of all ages saw greater rates of kidney stone development than their White counterparts. 

Fewer residents are choosing to specialize in nephrology, with a decrease in the choice of fellowship of 50% from 2009 to 2019, according to a 2023 report by the American Society of Nephrology.

A 2019 survey of nearly 4,200 residents found that only 60% of nephrology fellowship positions were filled in 2018, and the majority of those residents reported a lack of interest in the kidney as being the most critical factor in not selecting the specialty. Others reported lack of exposure to nephrology overall.
 

Diagnosing the root cause

Getting to the root cause of how further kidney stones can be prevented usually requires a nephrologist, according to Dr. Jaeger.

“As a urologist, 90% of what we do is surgery,” she said.

Although urologists are trained in analyzing 24-hour urine tests, which can reveal risks that can be addressed by preventive changes, many urologists tap a specialized nephrologist, who may analyze the samples with a keener eye. 

“When individuals pass a stone, fewer than 10% seek care with a specialist after that and that’s a missed opportunity to prevent future stones,” Dr. Tasian said. 

Not all nephrologists specialize in stones, but they may be better equipped to recognize when a patient needs to see someone who does. Failing to involve a nephrologist who specializes in kidney stones can have grave consequences for patient health. 

Dr. Goldfarb is currently caring for a patient with a kidney transplant that had begun to lose function. Clinicians who originally cared for the patient took a kidney biopsy, which showed fragments of calcium oxalate, a common type of kidney stone, in her native kidneys.

After receiving a kidney transplant, her health began to decline again and a second biopsy found that the new kidney was forming the same type of stones. Her nephrologist knew this meant she likely had a genetic disorder and referred her to Dr. Goldfarb, who specializes in underlying genetic causes of kidney stones. A genetic test revealed that the patient had primary hyperoxaluria. 

“She would have been treated completely differently if that had been recognized as the cause of her original kidney disease,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “Now her kidney transplant is getting kidney stones and I’m working with her to prevent that.”

Under Dr. Goldfarb, the patient will have access to a new experimental drug, called nedosiran, currently in clinical trials. It is specifically for primary hyperoxaluria. 

“The kidney doctor that made the diagnosis correctly and referred her to me isn’t a kidney stone specialist; he is a general nephrologist who has taken an interest in the topic of kidney stones, recognizing there is sometimes some nuance and specialty of issues related to this,” Dr. Goldfarb said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Measuring four circulating biomarkers through a simple blood test in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may predict their risk of heart and kidney disease progression, suggests an analysis of the CREDENCE trial.

The research, published online in the journal Circulation, also revealed that patients treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet) had lower levels of the biomarkers after 1 year compared with those given placebo.

Examination of biomarker levels in more than 2,600 patients from CREDENCE showed that high baseline concentrations of the individual biomarkers were able to predict the future risk for a composite endpoint of renal and heart outcomes.

The combination of all four biomarkers into a single panel revealed that patients with the highest levels were more than four times as likely to experience the composite endpoint than were those with the lowest levels.

As two of the biomarkers used in the study have yet to have established prognostic thresholds, the results remain exploratory.

Lead author James L. Januzzi, MD, director of the Heart Failure and Biomarker Trials at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, said that further study will help refine the predictive value of the panel.

“Given that the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the American Diabetes Association now all recommend measurement of biomarkers to enhance the ability to predict risk in persons with type 2 diabetes, these results may considerably extend the reach of biomarker-based testing, refining accuracy even further,” he said in a press release.

In an interview, Dr. Januzzi said that “three out of the four biomarkers are already clinically and commercially available,” while the fourth, for insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), is “on the near horizon.”

He stressed that the “future for multiple biomarker testing, however, will be less about ordering each individual test, and ultimately will revolve around panels of blood work that are ordered as a single test.”

Dr. Januzzi added that “rather than using the rather primitive approach that we took” of looking at the individual biomarkers in adjusted models, the next stage “will be to utilize algorithms to combine the results into a single value.

“A clinician will not have to struggle with looking at individual results but will just receive one aggregated test result that informs them whether a patient is at low, medium or higher risk,” he explained.

However, this will require determining the relative importance of each biomarker and weighting them in the final model.

Consequently, the current results “set the foundation for identifying some very powerful individual tests that may ultimately, in aggregate, help us to help our patients with diabetes avoid a major complication,” Dr. Januzzi said.

By revealing that some individuals with both type 2 diabetes and kidney disease are at higher risk than others, he also hopes the findings can be leveraged to treat patients with “varying degrees of intensity with proven therapies, including weight loss, dietary adjustment, and pharmacologic intervention.”

Dr. Januzzi added: “Diabetes affects a dramatic, and growing, percentage of our population, and this type of personalized strategy to reduce the major complications of this rather common disease is an important step forward.”

The authors noted that there is a “bidirectional relationship” between cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), such that either diagnosis may increase the risk of, or exacerbate, the other. 

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD albuminuria, they added, are at particularly high risk for major cardiovascular events, and studies have shown that several circulating cardiorenal stress biomarkers may predict the onset and progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes, as well as predict cardiovascular events.
 

Several biomarkers associated with myocardial stress and necrosis

The recent CANVAS trial revealed that, among individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without CKD, several biomarkers were associated with myocardial stress and necrosis, and renal tubular injury, predicting the progression of CKD with albuminuria, and the risk for heart failure events.

Taking inspiration from those findings, the current researchers studied a panel of similar cardiac and renal biomarkers among participants from the CREDENCE trial, for which 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD at high risk of progression were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo.

The current analysis involved 2,627 participants who had baseline plasma samples available for analysis of four circulating biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and IGFBP7.

Among those, 2,385 participants also had year 1 plasma samples available for analysis, while year 3 plasma samples were available for 895 individuals.

The results showed that, in general, median baseline concentrations of each biomarker in both treatment groups were elevated compared with healthy reference populations.

Baseline log-transformed concentrations of each biomarker were also strongly predictive of cardiac and renal outcomes, including heart failure and progression of CKD.

For example, each unit increase in baseline NT-proBNP concentrations was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.35 for the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine levels, renal death, or cardiovascular disease (P < .001).

For each unit increase in hs-cTnT levels, the hazard ratio for the primary composite was 1.73 (P < .001), for GDF-15 it was 1.84 (P < .0001), and for IGFBP7 the hazard ratio was 3.14 (P < .001).

Combining the four biomarkers into a single multimarker panel revealed that, compared with individuals with a low-risk score, those with a high-risk score had a hazard ratio for the primary outcome of 4.01, whereas those with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.39 (P < .001 for both).

For the individual outcome of heart failure hospitalization, the effect was even greater. A high-risk score was associated with a hazard ratio vs. a low-risk score of 6.04 (P < .001), whereas patients with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.45 (P = .04).

The researchers also reported that, between baseline and year 1, concentrations of all four biomarkers rose from 6% to 29% in the placebo group, but from 3% to just 10% in those treated with canagliflozin.

“It was reassuring to discover that canagliflozin helped reduce risks the most in people with the highest chances for complications,” said Dr. Januzzi.

The CREDENCE trial and the current analysis were funded by Janssen Research & Development LLC. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and IGFBP7 reagents were provided by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi is funded in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. Dr. Januzzi declared relationships with Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Jana Care, Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda.


 

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

Measuring four circulating biomarkers through a simple blood test in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may predict their risk of heart and kidney disease progression, suggests an analysis of the CREDENCE trial.

The research, published online in the journal Circulation, also revealed that patients treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet) had lower levels of the biomarkers after 1 year compared with those given placebo.

Examination of biomarker levels in more than 2,600 patients from CREDENCE showed that high baseline concentrations of the individual biomarkers were able to predict the future risk for a composite endpoint of renal and heart outcomes.

The combination of all four biomarkers into a single panel revealed that patients with the highest levels were more than four times as likely to experience the composite endpoint than were those with the lowest levels.

As two of the biomarkers used in the study have yet to have established prognostic thresholds, the results remain exploratory.

Lead author James L. Januzzi, MD, director of the Heart Failure and Biomarker Trials at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, said that further study will help refine the predictive value of the panel.

“Given that the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the American Diabetes Association now all recommend measurement of biomarkers to enhance the ability to predict risk in persons with type 2 diabetes, these results may considerably extend the reach of biomarker-based testing, refining accuracy even further,” he said in a press release.

In an interview, Dr. Januzzi said that “three out of the four biomarkers are already clinically and commercially available,” while the fourth, for insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), is “on the near horizon.”

He stressed that the “future for multiple biomarker testing, however, will be less about ordering each individual test, and ultimately will revolve around panels of blood work that are ordered as a single test.”

Dr. Januzzi added that “rather than using the rather primitive approach that we took” of looking at the individual biomarkers in adjusted models, the next stage “will be to utilize algorithms to combine the results into a single value.

“A clinician will not have to struggle with looking at individual results but will just receive one aggregated test result that informs them whether a patient is at low, medium or higher risk,” he explained.

However, this will require determining the relative importance of each biomarker and weighting them in the final model.

Consequently, the current results “set the foundation for identifying some very powerful individual tests that may ultimately, in aggregate, help us to help our patients with diabetes avoid a major complication,” Dr. Januzzi said.

By revealing that some individuals with both type 2 diabetes and kidney disease are at higher risk than others, he also hopes the findings can be leveraged to treat patients with “varying degrees of intensity with proven therapies, including weight loss, dietary adjustment, and pharmacologic intervention.”

Dr. Januzzi added: “Diabetes affects a dramatic, and growing, percentage of our population, and this type of personalized strategy to reduce the major complications of this rather common disease is an important step forward.”

The authors noted that there is a “bidirectional relationship” between cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), such that either diagnosis may increase the risk of, or exacerbate, the other. 

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD albuminuria, they added, are at particularly high risk for major cardiovascular events, and studies have shown that several circulating cardiorenal stress biomarkers may predict the onset and progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes, as well as predict cardiovascular events.
 

Several biomarkers associated with myocardial stress and necrosis

The recent CANVAS trial revealed that, among individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without CKD, several biomarkers were associated with myocardial stress and necrosis, and renal tubular injury, predicting the progression of CKD with albuminuria, and the risk for heart failure events.

Taking inspiration from those findings, the current researchers studied a panel of similar cardiac and renal biomarkers among participants from the CREDENCE trial, for which 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD at high risk of progression were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo.

The current analysis involved 2,627 participants who had baseline plasma samples available for analysis of four circulating biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and IGFBP7.

Among those, 2,385 participants also had year 1 plasma samples available for analysis, while year 3 plasma samples were available for 895 individuals.

The results showed that, in general, median baseline concentrations of each biomarker in both treatment groups were elevated compared with healthy reference populations.

Baseline log-transformed concentrations of each biomarker were also strongly predictive of cardiac and renal outcomes, including heart failure and progression of CKD.

For example, each unit increase in baseline NT-proBNP concentrations was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.35 for the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine levels, renal death, or cardiovascular disease (P < .001).

For each unit increase in hs-cTnT levels, the hazard ratio for the primary composite was 1.73 (P < .001), for GDF-15 it was 1.84 (P < .0001), and for IGFBP7 the hazard ratio was 3.14 (P < .001).

Combining the four biomarkers into a single multimarker panel revealed that, compared with individuals with a low-risk score, those with a high-risk score had a hazard ratio for the primary outcome of 4.01, whereas those with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.39 (P < .001 for both).

For the individual outcome of heart failure hospitalization, the effect was even greater. A high-risk score was associated with a hazard ratio vs. a low-risk score of 6.04 (P < .001), whereas patients with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.45 (P = .04).

The researchers also reported that, between baseline and year 1, concentrations of all four biomarkers rose from 6% to 29% in the placebo group, but from 3% to just 10% in those treated with canagliflozin.

“It was reassuring to discover that canagliflozin helped reduce risks the most in people with the highest chances for complications,” said Dr. Januzzi.

The CREDENCE trial and the current analysis were funded by Janssen Research & Development LLC. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and IGFBP7 reagents were provided by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi is funded in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. Dr. Januzzi declared relationships with Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Jana Care, Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda.


 

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

Measuring four circulating biomarkers through a simple blood test in patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease may predict their risk of heart and kidney disease progression, suggests an analysis of the CREDENCE trial.

The research, published online in the journal Circulation, also revealed that patients treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet) had lower levels of the biomarkers after 1 year compared with those given placebo.

Examination of biomarker levels in more than 2,600 patients from CREDENCE showed that high baseline concentrations of the individual biomarkers were able to predict the future risk for a composite endpoint of renal and heart outcomes.

The combination of all four biomarkers into a single panel revealed that patients with the highest levels were more than four times as likely to experience the composite endpoint than were those with the lowest levels.

As two of the biomarkers used in the study have yet to have established prognostic thresholds, the results remain exploratory.

Lead author James L. Januzzi, MD, director of the Heart Failure and Biomarker Trials at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, said that further study will help refine the predictive value of the panel.

“Given that the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the American Diabetes Association now all recommend measurement of biomarkers to enhance the ability to predict risk in persons with type 2 diabetes, these results may considerably extend the reach of biomarker-based testing, refining accuracy even further,” he said in a press release.

In an interview, Dr. Januzzi said that “three out of the four biomarkers are already clinically and commercially available,” while the fourth, for insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), is “on the near horizon.”

He stressed that the “future for multiple biomarker testing, however, will be less about ordering each individual test, and ultimately will revolve around panels of blood work that are ordered as a single test.”

Dr. Januzzi added that “rather than using the rather primitive approach that we took” of looking at the individual biomarkers in adjusted models, the next stage “will be to utilize algorithms to combine the results into a single value.

“A clinician will not have to struggle with looking at individual results but will just receive one aggregated test result that informs them whether a patient is at low, medium or higher risk,” he explained.

However, this will require determining the relative importance of each biomarker and weighting them in the final model.

Consequently, the current results “set the foundation for identifying some very powerful individual tests that may ultimately, in aggregate, help us to help our patients with diabetes avoid a major complication,” Dr. Januzzi said.

By revealing that some individuals with both type 2 diabetes and kidney disease are at higher risk than others, he also hopes the findings can be leveraged to treat patients with “varying degrees of intensity with proven therapies, including weight loss, dietary adjustment, and pharmacologic intervention.”

Dr. Januzzi added: “Diabetes affects a dramatic, and growing, percentage of our population, and this type of personalized strategy to reduce the major complications of this rather common disease is an important step forward.”

The authors noted that there is a “bidirectional relationship” between cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), such that either diagnosis may increase the risk of, or exacerbate, the other. 

Individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD albuminuria, they added, are at particularly high risk for major cardiovascular events, and studies have shown that several circulating cardiorenal stress biomarkers may predict the onset and progression of CKD in type 2 diabetes, as well as predict cardiovascular events.
 

Several biomarkers associated with myocardial stress and necrosis

The recent CANVAS trial revealed that, among individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without CKD, several biomarkers were associated with myocardial stress and necrosis, and renal tubular injury, predicting the progression of CKD with albuminuria, and the risk for heart failure events.

Taking inspiration from those findings, the current researchers studied a panel of similar cardiac and renal biomarkers among participants from the CREDENCE trial, for which 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD at high risk of progression were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo.

The current analysis involved 2,627 participants who had baseline plasma samples available for analysis of four circulating biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and IGFBP7.

Among those, 2,385 participants also had year 1 plasma samples available for analysis, while year 3 plasma samples were available for 895 individuals.

The results showed that, in general, median baseline concentrations of each biomarker in both treatment groups were elevated compared with healthy reference populations.

Baseline log-transformed concentrations of each biomarker were also strongly predictive of cardiac and renal outcomes, including heart failure and progression of CKD.

For example, each unit increase in baseline NT-proBNP concentrations was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.35 for the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine levels, renal death, or cardiovascular disease (P < .001).

For each unit increase in hs-cTnT levels, the hazard ratio for the primary composite was 1.73 (P < .001), for GDF-15 it was 1.84 (P < .0001), and for IGFBP7 the hazard ratio was 3.14 (P < .001).

Combining the four biomarkers into a single multimarker panel revealed that, compared with individuals with a low-risk score, those with a high-risk score had a hazard ratio for the primary outcome of 4.01, whereas those with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.39 (P < .001 for both).

For the individual outcome of heart failure hospitalization, the effect was even greater. A high-risk score was associated with a hazard ratio vs. a low-risk score of 6.04 (P < .001), whereas patients with a moderate risk score had a hazard ratio of 2.45 (P = .04).

The researchers also reported that, between baseline and year 1, concentrations of all four biomarkers rose from 6% to 29% in the placebo group, but from 3% to just 10% in those treated with canagliflozin.

“It was reassuring to discover that canagliflozin helped reduce risks the most in people with the highest chances for complications,” said Dr. Januzzi.

The CREDENCE trial and the current analysis were funded by Janssen Research & Development LLC. NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and IGFBP7 reagents were provided by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi is funded in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. Dr. Januzzi declared relationships with Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Jana Care, Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda.


 

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

A pair of genetically modified pig kidneys filtered blood and produced urine for 7 days after being transplanted into a brain-dead patient – marking another important step toward opening up a new supply of much-needed organs for those with end-stage kidney disease.

A team of researchers in Alabama removed a brain-dead person’s kidneys and transplanted two kidneys that had been taken from a genetically modified pig. The researchers monitored the patient’s response to the organs and tracked the kidneys’ function over a 7-day period. The findings were published in JAMA Surgery.

During the first 24 hours after transplantation, the pig kidneys made more than 37 liters of urine. “It was really a remarkable thing to see,” lead investigator Jayme Locke, MD, professor of surgery and the Arnold G. Diethelm Endowed Chair in Transplantation Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a press release.

The recipient was given standard maintenance immunosuppression - tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. The target tacrolimus level (8-10 ng/dL) was reached by postoperative day 2 and was maintained through study completion.

At the end of the study, the serum creatinine level was 0.9 mg/dL, and creatinine clearance was 200 mL/min. Creatinine levels are an indicator of kidney function and demonstrate the organ’s ability to filter waste from blood, according to Roger Lord, PhD, senior lecturer (medical sciences) in the School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, who was not involved in the research.

This is the first time that it has been demonstrated that a standard immunosuppression regimen may be sufficient to support xenotransplantation with pig kidneys and in which creatinine clearance was achieved.

The finding comes less than 2 years after the same team published results from a similar experiment. In that transplant, the investigators didn’t observe significant creatinine excretion into the urine.

In the team’s previous attempts, kidney function was delayed because the brain-dead recipients had deteriorated physiologically. This time, the subject was stable, and the team was able to observe urine production within 4 minutes of restoration of blood flow to the transplanted pig organs.

“This new work firmly establishes that the xenografts not only make urine but provide life-sustaining kidney function by clearing serum creatinine,” Locke said in an interview. “This is the first time in history this has been shown.”

The investigators are hoping animal-sourced organs could become an alternative for human transplantations, potentially solving the serious shortage of human organs available for patients on transplant waiting lists.

Organ transplantation can treat patients with advanced kidney disease and kidney failure, but there are not enough human organs available to meet the need. More than 92,000 people in the United States are waiting for a kidney, according to the American Kidney Fund.

Organ rejection is a risk with xenotransplants – animal-to-human organ transplants. Investigators in this study used kidneys from pigs with 10 gene modifications. The modifications were intended to decrease the likelihood of the organs being rejected by a human host.

The kidneys were still viable at the end of the 7-day period. In addition, there was no microscopic blood clot formation, another indicator of normal kidney function, according to Dr. Lord, who provided comments to the UK Science Media Centre.

The long-term outcomes of animal-to-human organ transplantation remain unclear. Dr. Lord describes the operation as a “first step” to demonstrate that genetically modified, transplanted pig kidneys can function normally so as to remove creatinine over a 7-day period.

Dr. Locke and colleagues said: “Future research in living human recipients is necessary to determine long-term xenograft kidney function and whether xenografts could serve as a bridge or destination therapy for end-stage kidney disease.

“Because our study represents a single case, generalizability of the findings is limited. This study showcases xenotransplant as a viable potential solution to an organ shortage crisis responsible for thousands of preventable deaths annually,” they concluded.

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

A pair of genetically modified pig kidneys filtered blood and produced urine for 7 days after being transplanted into a brain-dead patient – marking another important step toward opening up a new supply of much-needed organs for those with end-stage kidney disease.

A team of researchers in Alabama removed a brain-dead person’s kidneys and transplanted two kidneys that had been taken from a genetically modified pig. The researchers monitored the patient’s response to the organs and tracked the kidneys’ function over a 7-day period. The findings were published in JAMA Surgery.

During the first 24 hours after transplantation, the pig kidneys made more than 37 liters of urine. “It was really a remarkable thing to see,” lead investigator Jayme Locke, MD, professor of surgery and the Arnold G. Diethelm Endowed Chair in Transplantation Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a press release.

The recipient was given standard maintenance immunosuppression - tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. The target tacrolimus level (8-10 ng/dL) was reached by postoperative day 2 and was maintained through study completion.

At the end of the study, the serum creatinine level was 0.9 mg/dL, and creatinine clearance was 200 mL/min. Creatinine levels are an indicator of kidney function and demonstrate the organ’s ability to filter waste from blood, according to Roger Lord, PhD, senior lecturer (medical sciences) in the School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, who was not involved in the research.

This is the first time that it has been demonstrated that a standard immunosuppression regimen may be sufficient to support xenotransplantation with pig kidneys and in which creatinine clearance was achieved.

The finding comes less than 2 years after the same team published results from a similar experiment. In that transplant, the investigators didn’t observe significant creatinine excretion into the urine.

In the team’s previous attempts, kidney function was delayed because the brain-dead recipients had deteriorated physiologically. This time, the subject was stable, and the team was able to observe urine production within 4 minutes of restoration of blood flow to the transplanted pig organs.

“This new work firmly establishes that the xenografts not only make urine but provide life-sustaining kidney function by clearing serum creatinine,” Locke said in an interview. “This is the first time in history this has been shown.”

The investigators are hoping animal-sourced organs could become an alternative for human transplantations, potentially solving the serious shortage of human organs available for patients on transplant waiting lists.

Organ transplantation can treat patients with advanced kidney disease and kidney failure, but there are not enough human organs available to meet the need. More than 92,000 people in the United States are waiting for a kidney, according to the American Kidney Fund.

Organ rejection is a risk with xenotransplants – animal-to-human organ transplants. Investigators in this study used kidneys from pigs with 10 gene modifications. The modifications were intended to decrease the likelihood of the organs being rejected by a human host.

The kidneys were still viable at the end of the 7-day period. In addition, there was no microscopic blood clot formation, another indicator of normal kidney function, according to Dr. Lord, who provided comments to the UK Science Media Centre.

The long-term outcomes of animal-to-human organ transplantation remain unclear. Dr. Lord describes the operation as a “first step” to demonstrate that genetically modified, transplanted pig kidneys can function normally so as to remove creatinine over a 7-day period.

Dr. Locke and colleagues said: “Future research in living human recipients is necessary to determine long-term xenograft kidney function and whether xenografts could serve as a bridge or destination therapy for end-stage kidney disease.

“Because our study represents a single case, generalizability of the findings is limited. This study showcases xenotransplant as a viable potential solution to an organ shortage crisis responsible for thousands of preventable deaths annually,” they concluded.

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

A pair of genetically modified pig kidneys filtered blood and produced urine for 7 days after being transplanted into a brain-dead patient – marking another important step toward opening up a new supply of much-needed organs for those with end-stage kidney disease.

A team of researchers in Alabama removed a brain-dead person’s kidneys and transplanted two kidneys that had been taken from a genetically modified pig. The researchers monitored the patient’s response to the organs and tracked the kidneys’ function over a 7-day period. The findings were published in JAMA Surgery.

During the first 24 hours after transplantation, the pig kidneys made more than 37 liters of urine. “It was really a remarkable thing to see,” lead investigator Jayme Locke, MD, professor of surgery and the Arnold G. Diethelm Endowed Chair in Transplantation Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a press release.

The recipient was given standard maintenance immunosuppression - tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone. The target tacrolimus level (8-10 ng/dL) was reached by postoperative day 2 and was maintained through study completion.

At the end of the study, the serum creatinine level was 0.9 mg/dL, and creatinine clearance was 200 mL/min. Creatinine levels are an indicator of kidney function and demonstrate the organ’s ability to filter waste from blood, according to Roger Lord, PhD, senior lecturer (medical sciences) in the School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, who was not involved in the research.

This is the first time that it has been demonstrated that a standard immunosuppression regimen may be sufficient to support xenotransplantation with pig kidneys and in which creatinine clearance was achieved.

The finding comes less than 2 years after the same team published results from a similar experiment. In that transplant, the investigators didn’t observe significant creatinine excretion into the urine.

In the team’s previous attempts, kidney function was delayed because the brain-dead recipients had deteriorated physiologically. This time, the subject was stable, and the team was able to observe urine production within 4 minutes of restoration of blood flow to the transplanted pig organs.

“This new work firmly establishes that the xenografts not only make urine but provide life-sustaining kidney function by clearing serum creatinine,” Locke said in an interview. “This is the first time in history this has been shown.”

The investigators are hoping animal-sourced organs could become an alternative for human transplantations, potentially solving the serious shortage of human organs available for patients on transplant waiting lists.

Organ transplantation can treat patients with advanced kidney disease and kidney failure, but there are not enough human organs available to meet the need. More than 92,000 people in the United States are waiting for a kidney, according to the American Kidney Fund.

Organ rejection is a risk with xenotransplants – animal-to-human organ transplants. Investigators in this study used kidneys from pigs with 10 gene modifications. The modifications were intended to decrease the likelihood of the organs being rejected by a human host.

The kidneys were still viable at the end of the 7-day period. In addition, there was no microscopic blood clot formation, another indicator of normal kidney function, according to Dr. Lord, who provided comments to the UK Science Media Centre.

The long-term outcomes of animal-to-human organ transplantation remain unclear. Dr. Lord describes the operation as a “first step” to demonstrate that genetically modified, transplanted pig kidneys can function normally so as to remove creatinine over a 7-day period.

Dr. Locke and colleagues said: “Future research in living human recipients is necessary to determine long-term xenograft kidney function and whether xenografts could serve as a bridge or destination therapy for end-stage kidney disease.

“Because our study represents a single case, generalizability of the findings is limited. This study showcases xenotransplant as a viable potential solution to an organ shortage crisis responsible for thousands of preventable deaths annually,” they concluded.

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

Nearly 90,000 patients in the United States are waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, yet only about 25,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. Thousands die each year while they wait. Others are not suitable transplant candidates.

Half a million people are on dialysis, the only transplant alternative for those with kidney failure. This greatly impacts their work, relationships, and quality of life.

Researchers from The Kidney Project hope to solve this public health crisis with a futuristic approach: an implantable bioartificial kidney. That hope is slowly approaching reality. Early prototypes have been tested successfully in preclinical research and clinical trials could lie ahead.

This news organization spoke with two researchers who came up with the idea: nephrologist William Dr. Fissell, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and Shuvo Dr. Roy, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of California, San Francisco. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Could you summarize the clinical problem with chronic kidney disease?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis treatment, although lifesaving, is incomplete. Healthy kidneys do a variety of things that dialysis cannot provide. Transplant is absolutely the best remedy, but donor organs are vanishingly scarce. Our goal has been to develop a mass-produced, universal donor kidney to render the issue of scarcity – scarcity of time, scarcity of resources, scarcity of money, scarcity of donor organs – irrelevant.

Do you envision your implantable, bioartificial kidney as a bridge to transplantation? Or can it be even more, like a bionic organ, as good as a natural organ and thus better than a transplant?

Dr. Roy: We see it initially as a bridge to transplantation or as a better option than dialysis for those who will never get a transplant. We’re not trying to create the “Six Million Dollar Man.” The goal is to keep patients off dialysis – to deliver some, but probably not all, of the benefits of a kidney transplant in a mass-produced device that anybody can receive.

Dr. Fissell: The technology is aimed at people in stage 5 renal disease, the final stage, when kidneys are failing, and dialysis is the only option to maintain life. We want to make dialysis a thing of the past, put dialysis machines in museums like the iron lung, which was so vital to keeping people alive several decades ago but is mostly obsolete today.

How did you two come up with this idea? How did you get started working together?

Dr. Roy: I had just begun my career as a research biomedical engineer when I met Dr. William Fissell, who was then contemplating a career in nephrology. He opened my eyes to the problems faced by patients affected by kidney failure. Through our discussions, we quickly realized that while we could improve dialysis machines, patients needed and deserved something better – a treatment that improves their health while also allowing them to keep a job, travel readily, and consume food and drink without restrictions. Basically, something that works more like a kidney transplant.

How does the artificial kidney differ from dialysis?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis is an intermittent stop-and-start treatment. The artificial kidney is continuous, around-the-clock treatment. There are a couple of advantages to that. The first is that you can maintain your body’s fluid balance. In dialysis, you get rid of 2-3 days’ worth of fluid in a couple of hours, and that’s very stressful to the heart and maybe to the brain as well. Second advantage is that patients will be able to eat a normal diet. Some waste products that are byproducts of our nutritional intake are slow to leave the body. So in dialysis, we restrict the diet severely and add medicines to soak up extra phosphorus. With a continuous treatment, you can balance excretion and intake.

The other aspect is that dialysis requires an immense amount of disposables. Hundreds of liters of water per patient per treatment, hundreds of thousands of dialysis cartridges and IV bags every year. The artificial kidney doesn’t need a water supply, disposable sorbent, or cartridges.
 

How does the artificial kidney work?

Dr. Fissell: Just like a healthy kidney. We have a unit that filters the blood so that red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, antibodies, albumin – all the good stuff that your body worked hard to synthesize – stays in the blood, but a watery soup of toxins and waste is separated out. In a second unit, called the bioreactor, kidney cells concentrate those wastes and toxins into urine.

Dr. Roy: We used a technology called silicon micro-machining to invent an entirely new membrane that mimics a healthy kidney’s filters. It filters the blood just using the patient’s heart as a pump. No electric motors, no batteries, no wires. This lets us have something that’s completely implanted.

We also developed a cell culture of kidney cells that function in an artificial kidney. Normally, cells in a dish don’t fully adopt the features of a cell in the body. We looked at the literature around 3-D printing of organs. We learned that, in addition to fluid flow, stiff scaffolds, like cell culture dishes, trigger specific signals that keep the cells from functioning. We overcame that by looking at the physical microenvironment of the cells –  not the hormones and proteins, but instead the fundamentals of the laboratory environment. For example, most organs are soft, yet plastic lab dishes are hard. By using tools that replicated the softness and fluid flow of a healthy kidney, remarkably, these cells functioned better than on a plastic dish.
 

Would patients need immunosuppressive or anticoagulation medication?

Dr. Fissell: They wouldn’t need either. The structure and chemistry of the device prevents blood from clotting. And the membranes in the device are a physical barrier between the host immune system and the donor cells, so the body won’t reject the device.

What is the state of the technology now?

Dr. Fissell: We have shown the function of the filters and the function of the cells, both separately and together, in preclinical in vivo testing. What we now need to do is construct clinical-grade devices and complete sterility and biocompatibility testing to initiate a human trial. That’s going to take between $12 million and $15 million in device manufacturing.

So it’s more a matter of money than time until the first clinical trials?

Dr. Roy: Yes, exactly. We don’t like to say that a clinical trial will start by such-and-such year. From the very start of the project, we have been resource limited.

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

Nearly 90,000 patients in the United States are waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, yet only about 25,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. Thousands die each year while they wait. Others are not suitable transplant candidates.

Half a million people are on dialysis, the only transplant alternative for those with kidney failure. This greatly impacts their work, relationships, and quality of life.

Researchers from The Kidney Project hope to solve this public health crisis with a futuristic approach: an implantable bioartificial kidney. That hope is slowly approaching reality. Early prototypes have been tested successfully in preclinical research and clinical trials could lie ahead.

This news organization spoke with two researchers who came up with the idea: nephrologist William Dr. Fissell, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and Shuvo Dr. Roy, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of California, San Francisco. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Could you summarize the clinical problem with chronic kidney disease?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis treatment, although lifesaving, is incomplete. Healthy kidneys do a variety of things that dialysis cannot provide. Transplant is absolutely the best remedy, but donor organs are vanishingly scarce. Our goal has been to develop a mass-produced, universal donor kidney to render the issue of scarcity – scarcity of time, scarcity of resources, scarcity of money, scarcity of donor organs – irrelevant.

Do you envision your implantable, bioartificial kidney as a bridge to transplantation? Or can it be even more, like a bionic organ, as good as a natural organ and thus better than a transplant?

Dr. Roy: We see it initially as a bridge to transplantation or as a better option than dialysis for those who will never get a transplant. We’re not trying to create the “Six Million Dollar Man.” The goal is to keep patients off dialysis – to deliver some, but probably not all, of the benefits of a kidney transplant in a mass-produced device that anybody can receive.

Dr. Fissell: The technology is aimed at people in stage 5 renal disease, the final stage, when kidneys are failing, and dialysis is the only option to maintain life. We want to make dialysis a thing of the past, put dialysis machines in museums like the iron lung, which was so vital to keeping people alive several decades ago but is mostly obsolete today.

How did you two come up with this idea? How did you get started working together?

Dr. Roy: I had just begun my career as a research biomedical engineer when I met Dr. William Fissell, who was then contemplating a career in nephrology. He opened my eyes to the problems faced by patients affected by kidney failure. Through our discussions, we quickly realized that while we could improve dialysis machines, patients needed and deserved something better – a treatment that improves their health while also allowing them to keep a job, travel readily, and consume food and drink without restrictions. Basically, something that works more like a kidney transplant.

How does the artificial kidney differ from dialysis?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis is an intermittent stop-and-start treatment. The artificial kidney is continuous, around-the-clock treatment. There are a couple of advantages to that. The first is that you can maintain your body’s fluid balance. In dialysis, you get rid of 2-3 days’ worth of fluid in a couple of hours, and that’s very stressful to the heart and maybe to the brain as well. Second advantage is that patients will be able to eat a normal diet. Some waste products that are byproducts of our nutritional intake are slow to leave the body. So in dialysis, we restrict the diet severely and add medicines to soak up extra phosphorus. With a continuous treatment, you can balance excretion and intake.

The other aspect is that dialysis requires an immense amount of disposables. Hundreds of liters of water per patient per treatment, hundreds of thousands of dialysis cartridges and IV bags every year. The artificial kidney doesn’t need a water supply, disposable sorbent, or cartridges.
 

How does the artificial kidney work?

Dr. Fissell: Just like a healthy kidney. We have a unit that filters the blood so that red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, antibodies, albumin – all the good stuff that your body worked hard to synthesize – stays in the blood, but a watery soup of toxins and waste is separated out. In a second unit, called the bioreactor, kidney cells concentrate those wastes and toxins into urine.

Dr. Roy: We used a technology called silicon micro-machining to invent an entirely new membrane that mimics a healthy kidney’s filters. It filters the blood just using the patient’s heart as a pump. No electric motors, no batteries, no wires. This lets us have something that’s completely implanted.

We also developed a cell culture of kidney cells that function in an artificial kidney. Normally, cells in a dish don’t fully adopt the features of a cell in the body. We looked at the literature around 3-D printing of organs. We learned that, in addition to fluid flow, stiff scaffolds, like cell culture dishes, trigger specific signals that keep the cells from functioning. We overcame that by looking at the physical microenvironment of the cells –  not the hormones and proteins, but instead the fundamentals of the laboratory environment. For example, most organs are soft, yet plastic lab dishes are hard. By using tools that replicated the softness and fluid flow of a healthy kidney, remarkably, these cells functioned better than on a plastic dish.
 

Would patients need immunosuppressive or anticoagulation medication?

Dr. Fissell: They wouldn’t need either. The structure and chemistry of the device prevents blood from clotting. And the membranes in the device are a physical barrier between the host immune system and the donor cells, so the body won’t reject the device.

What is the state of the technology now?

Dr. Fissell: We have shown the function of the filters and the function of the cells, both separately and together, in preclinical in vivo testing. What we now need to do is construct clinical-grade devices and complete sterility and biocompatibility testing to initiate a human trial. That’s going to take between $12 million and $15 million in device manufacturing.

So it’s more a matter of money than time until the first clinical trials?

Dr. Roy: Yes, exactly. We don’t like to say that a clinical trial will start by such-and-such year. From the very start of the project, we have been resource limited.

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

Nearly 90,000 patients in the United States are waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, yet only about 25,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. Thousands die each year while they wait. Others are not suitable transplant candidates.

Half a million people are on dialysis, the only transplant alternative for those with kidney failure. This greatly impacts their work, relationships, and quality of life.

Researchers from The Kidney Project hope to solve this public health crisis with a futuristic approach: an implantable bioartificial kidney. That hope is slowly approaching reality. Early prototypes have been tested successfully in preclinical research and clinical trials could lie ahead.

This news organization spoke with two researchers who came up with the idea: nephrologist William Dr. Fissell, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and Shuvo Dr. Roy, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of California, San Francisco. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Could you summarize the clinical problem with chronic kidney disease?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis treatment, although lifesaving, is incomplete. Healthy kidneys do a variety of things that dialysis cannot provide. Transplant is absolutely the best remedy, but donor organs are vanishingly scarce. Our goal has been to develop a mass-produced, universal donor kidney to render the issue of scarcity – scarcity of time, scarcity of resources, scarcity of money, scarcity of donor organs – irrelevant.

Do you envision your implantable, bioartificial kidney as a bridge to transplantation? Or can it be even more, like a bionic organ, as good as a natural organ and thus better than a transplant?

Dr. Roy: We see it initially as a bridge to transplantation or as a better option than dialysis for those who will never get a transplant. We’re not trying to create the “Six Million Dollar Man.” The goal is to keep patients off dialysis – to deliver some, but probably not all, of the benefits of a kidney transplant in a mass-produced device that anybody can receive.

Dr. Fissell: The technology is aimed at people in stage 5 renal disease, the final stage, when kidneys are failing, and dialysis is the only option to maintain life. We want to make dialysis a thing of the past, put dialysis machines in museums like the iron lung, which was so vital to keeping people alive several decades ago but is mostly obsolete today.

How did you two come up with this idea? How did you get started working together?

Dr. Roy: I had just begun my career as a research biomedical engineer when I met Dr. William Fissell, who was then contemplating a career in nephrology. He opened my eyes to the problems faced by patients affected by kidney failure. Through our discussions, we quickly realized that while we could improve dialysis machines, patients needed and deserved something better – a treatment that improves their health while also allowing them to keep a job, travel readily, and consume food and drink without restrictions. Basically, something that works more like a kidney transplant.

How does the artificial kidney differ from dialysis?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis is an intermittent stop-and-start treatment. The artificial kidney is continuous, around-the-clock treatment. There are a couple of advantages to that. The first is that you can maintain your body’s fluid balance. In dialysis, you get rid of 2-3 days’ worth of fluid in a couple of hours, and that’s very stressful to the heart and maybe to the brain as well. Second advantage is that patients will be able to eat a normal diet. Some waste products that are byproducts of our nutritional intake are slow to leave the body. So in dialysis, we restrict the diet severely and add medicines to soak up extra phosphorus. With a continuous treatment, you can balance excretion and intake.

The other aspect is that dialysis requires an immense amount of disposables. Hundreds of liters of water per patient per treatment, hundreds of thousands of dialysis cartridges and IV bags every year. The artificial kidney doesn’t need a water supply, disposable sorbent, or cartridges.
 

How does the artificial kidney work?

Dr. Fissell: Just like a healthy kidney. We have a unit that filters the blood so that red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, antibodies, albumin – all the good stuff that your body worked hard to synthesize – stays in the blood, but a watery soup of toxins and waste is separated out. In a second unit, called the bioreactor, kidney cells concentrate those wastes and toxins into urine.

Dr. Roy: We used a technology called silicon micro-machining to invent an entirely new membrane that mimics a healthy kidney’s filters. It filters the blood just using the patient’s heart as a pump. No electric motors, no batteries, no wires. This lets us have something that’s completely implanted.

We also developed a cell culture of kidney cells that function in an artificial kidney. Normally, cells in a dish don’t fully adopt the features of a cell in the body. We looked at the literature around 3-D printing of organs. We learned that, in addition to fluid flow, stiff scaffolds, like cell culture dishes, trigger specific signals that keep the cells from functioning. We overcame that by looking at the physical microenvironment of the cells –  not the hormones and proteins, but instead the fundamentals of the laboratory environment. For example, most organs are soft, yet plastic lab dishes are hard. By using tools that replicated the softness and fluid flow of a healthy kidney, remarkably, these cells functioned better than on a plastic dish.
 

Would patients need immunosuppressive or anticoagulation medication?

Dr. Fissell: They wouldn’t need either. The structure and chemistry of the device prevents blood from clotting. And the membranes in the device are a physical barrier between the host immune system and the donor cells, so the body won’t reject the device.

What is the state of the technology now?

Dr. Fissell: We have shown the function of the filters and the function of the cells, both separately and together, in preclinical in vivo testing. What we now need to do is construct clinical-grade devices and complete sterility and biocompatibility testing to initiate a human trial. That’s going to take between $12 million and $15 million in device manufacturing.

So it’s more a matter of money than time until the first clinical trials?

Dr. Roy: Yes, exactly. We don’t like to say that a clinical trial will start by such-and-such year. From the very start of the project, we have been resource limited.

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

Consuming a higher percentage of calories from added sugars is linked with a higher prevalence of kidney stones, new research suggests.

Though added sugars have been linked with multiple poor health outcomes, their link with kidney stones has been unclear.

Added sugars are sugars or caloric sweeteners added to foods or drinks during processing or preparation to add flavor or shelf life. They do not include natural sugars such as lactose in milk and fructose in fruits.

Researchers, led by Shan Yin, a urologist at Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, in Nanchong, China, compared the added-sugar intake by quartiles in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018.

A total of 28,303 adults were included in this study, with an average age of 48. Women who consumed less than 600 or more than 3,500 kcal or men who consumed less than 800 or more than 4,200 kcal were excluded.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, race, education, income, physical activity, and marital, employment, and smoking status.

Compared with the first quartile of percentage added-sugar calorie intake, the population in the fourth quartile, with the highest added sugar intake, had a higher prevalence of kidney stones (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.65).

Compared with the group with fewer than 5% of calories from added sugar, the group that consumed at least 25% of calories from added sugar had nearly twice the prevalence of kidney stones (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.52-2.32).

Findings were published online in Frontiers in Nutrition.

“By identifying this association, policymakers and health professionals can emphasize the need for public health initiatives to reduce added sugar consumption and promote healthy dietary habits,” the authors write.
 

Added sugar in the U.S. diet

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and energy and sports drinks account for 34.4% of added sugars in the American diet. Previous studies have shown the relationship between consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, diseases that often co-occur with kidney stones.

Researchers note that even though most added sugars in the United States come from sugar-sweetened beverages, it’s unclear whether the association between added sugars and kidney stones is caused by the beverages or other sources. For instance, fructose intake has been found to be independently associated with kidney stones.

How much is too much?

The recommended upper limit on added sugar is controversial and varies widely by health organization. The American Heart Association says daily average intake from added sugars should be no more than 150 kcal for adult males (about 9 teaspoons) and no more than 100 kcal for women (about 6 teaspoons). The Institute of Medicine allows up to 25% of calories to be consumed from added sugars. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and World Health Organization set 10% of calories as the recommended upper limit.

Further investigating what causes kidney stones is critical as kidney stones are common worldwide, affecting about 1 in 10 people in the United States alone, and occurrence is increasing. Kidney stones have a high recurrence rate – about half of people who get them have a second episode within 10 years, the authors note.

The researchers acknowledge that because participants self-reported food intake, there is the potential for recall bias. Additionally, because of the cross-sectional design, the researchers were not able to determine whether sugar intake or kidney stone occurrence came first.

This work was supported by the Doctoral Fund Project of North Sichuan Medical College. The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Consuming a higher percentage of calories from added sugars is linked with a higher prevalence of kidney stones, new research suggests.

Though added sugars have been linked with multiple poor health outcomes, their link with kidney stones has been unclear.

Added sugars are sugars or caloric sweeteners added to foods or drinks during processing or preparation to add flavor or shelf life. They do not include natural sugars such as lactose in milk and fructose in fruits.

Researchers, led by Shan Yin, a urologist at Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, in Nanchong, China, compared the added-sugar intake by quartiles in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018.

A total of 28,303 adults were included in this study, with an average age of 48. Women who consumed less than 600 or more than 3,500 kcal or men who consumed less than 800 or more than 4,200 kcal were excluded.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, race, education, income, physical activity, and marital, employment, and smoking status.

Compared with the first quartile of percentage added-sugar calorie intake, the population in the fourth quartile, with the highest added sugar intake, had a higher prevalence of kidney stones (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.65).

Compared with the group with fewer than 5% of calories from added sugar, the group that consumed at least 25% of calories from added sugar had nearly twice the prevalence of kidney stones (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.52-2.32).

Findings were published online in Frontiers in Nutrition.

“By identifying this association, policymakers and health professionals can emphasize the need for public health initiatives to reduce added sugar consumption and promote healthy dietary habits,” the authors write.
 

Added sugar in the U.S. diet

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and energy and sports drinks account for 34.4% of added sugars in the American diet. Previous studies have shown the relationship between consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, diseases that often co-occur with kidney stones.

Researchers note that even though most added sugars in the United States come from sugar-sweetened beverages, it’s unclear whether the association between added sugars and kidney stones is caused by the beverages or other sources. For instance, fructose intake has been found to be independently associated with kidney stones.

How much is too much?

The recommended upper limit on added sugar is controversial and varies widely by health organization. The American Heart Association says daily average intake from added sugars should be no more than 150 kcal for adult males (about 9 teaspoons) and no more than 100 kcal for women (about 6 teaspoons). The Institute of Medicine allows up to 25% of calories to be consumed from added sugars. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and World Health Organization set 10% of calories as the recommended upper limit.

Further investigating what causes kidney stones is critical as kidney stones are common worldwide, affecting about 1 in 10 people in the United States alone, and occurrence is increasing. Kidney stones have a high recurrence rate – about half of people who get them have a second episode within 10 years, the authors note.

The researchers acknowledge that because participants self-reported food intake, there is the potential for recall bias. Additionally, because of the cross-sectional design, the researchers were not able to determine whether sugar intake or kidney stone occurrence came first.

This work was supported by the Doctoral Fund Project of North Sichuan Medical College. The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Consuming a higher percentage of calories from added sugars is linked with a higher prevalence of kidney stones, new research suggests.

Though added sugars have been linked with multiple poor health outcomes, their link with kidney stones has been unclear.

Added sugars are sugars or caloric sweeteners added to foods or drinks during processing or preparation to add flavor or shelf life. They do not include natural sugars such as lactose in milk and fructose in fruits.

Researchers, led by Shan Yin, a urologist at Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, in Nanchong, China, compared the added-sugar intake by quartiles in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018.

A total of 28,303 adults were included in this study, with an average age of 48. Women who consumed less than 600 or more than 3,500 kcal or men who consumed less than 800 or more than 4,200 kcal were excluded.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, race, education, income, physical activity, and marital, employment, and smoking status.

Compared with the first quartile of percentage added-sugar calorie intake, the population in the fourth quartile, with the highest added sugar intake, had a higher prevalence of kidney stones (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.65).

Compared with the group with fewer than 5% of calories from added sugar, the group that consumed at least 25% of calories from added sugar had nearly twice the prevalence of kidney stones (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.52-2.32).

Findings were published online in Frontiers in Nutrition.

“By identifying this association, policymakers and health professionals can emphasize the need for public health initiatives to reduce added sugar consumption and promote healthy dietary habits,” the authors write.
 

Added sugar in the U.S. diet

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and energy and sports drinks account for 34.4% of added sugars in the American diet. Previous studies have shown the relationship between consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, diseases that often co-occur with kidney stones.

Researchers note that even though most added sugars in the United States come from sugar-sweetened beverages, it’s unclear whether the association between added sugars and kidney stones is caused by the beverages or other sources. For instance, fructose intake has been found to be independently associated with kidney stones.

How much is too much?

The recommended upper limit on added sugar is controversial and varies widely by health organization. The American Heart Association says daily average intake from added sugars should be no more than 150 kcal for adult males (about 9 teaspoons) and no more than 100 kcal for women (about 6 teaspoons). The Institute of Medicine allows up to 25% of calories to be consumed from added sugars. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and World Health Organization set 10% of calories as the recommended upper limit.

Further investigating what causes kidney stones is critical as kidney stones are common worldwide, affecting about 1 in 10 people in the United States alone, and occurrence is increasing. Kidney stones have a high recurrence rate – about half of people who get them have a second episode within 10 years, the authors note.

The researchers acknowledge that because participants self-reported food intake, there is the potential for recall bias. Additionally, because of the cross-sectional design, the researchers were not able to determine whether sugar intake or kidney stone occurrence came first.

This work was supported by the Doctoral Fund Project of North Sichuan Medical College. The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.