Thrombosis

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

Is going sugar free really good advice for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors? 

That’s the question raised by new Cleveland Clinic research, which suggests that consuming erythritol, a sweetener widely found in sugar-free and keto food products, could spur a prothrombotic response. 

In the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 10 healthy participants ate 30 grams of erythritol. Thirty minutes later, their blood showed enhanced platelet aggregation and increased markers of platelet responsiveness and activation. 

Specifically, the researchers saw enhanced stimulus-dependent release of serotonin (a marker of platelet dense granules) and CXCL4 (a platelet alpha-granule marker). 

“ With every single person, you see a prothrombotic effect with every single test that we did,” said study author Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. By contrast, participants who ate 30 grams of glucose saw no such effect. 

The erythritol itself does not activate the platelets, Dr. Hazen said, rather it lowers the threshold for triggering a response. This could make someone more prone to clotting, raising heart attack and stroke risk over time.

Though the mechanism is unknown, Dr. Hazen has an idea. 

“There appears to be a receptor on platelets that is recognizing and sensing these sugar alcohols,” Dr. Hazen said, “much in the same way your taste bud for sweet is a receptor for recognizing a glucose or sugar molecule.” 

“We’re very interested in trying to figure out what the receptor is,” Dr. Hazen said, “because I think that then becomes a very interesting potential target for further investigation and study into how this is linked to causing heart disease.”
 

The Past and Future of Erythritol Research

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration classified erythritol as a “generally recognized as safe” food additive. A sugar alcohol that occurs naturally in foods like melon and grapes, erythritol is also manufactured by fermenting sugars. It’s about 70% as sweet as table sugar. Humans also produce small amounts of erythritol naturally: Our blood cells make it from glucose via the pentose phosphate pathway. 

Previous research from Dr. Hazen’s group linked erythritol to a risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and clotting. 

“Based on their previous study, I think this was a really important study to do in healthy individuals,” said Martha Field, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, who was not involved in the study.

The earlier paper analyzed blood samples from participants with unknown erythritol intake, including some taken before the sweetener, and it was as widespread as it is today. That made disentangling the effects of eating erythritol vs naturally producing it more difficult. 

By showing that eating erythritol raises markers associated with thrombosis, the new paper reinforces the importance of thinking about and developing a deeper understanding of what we put into our bodies. 

“This paper was conducted in healthy individuals — might this be particularly dangerous for individuals who are at increased risk of clotting?” asked Dr. Field. “There are lots of genetic polymorphisms that increase your risk for clotting disorders or your propensity to form thrombosis.” 

Field would like to see similar analyses of xylitol and sorbitol, other sugar alcohols found in sugar-free foods. And she called for more studies on erythritol that look at lower erythritol consumption over longer time periods. 

Registered dietitian nutritionist Valisa E. Hedrick, PhD, agreed: Much more work is needed in this area, particularly in higher-risk groups, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, said Dr. Hedrick, an associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, who was not involved in the study. 

“Because this study was conducted in healthy individuals, the impact of a small dose of glucose was negligible, as their body can effectively regulate blood glucose levels,” she said. “Because high blood glucose concentrations have also been shown to increase platelet reactivity, and consequently increase thrombosis potential, individuals who are not able to regulate their blood glucose levels, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, could potentially see a similar effect on the body as erythritol when consuming large amounts of sugar.” 

At the same time, “individuals with diabetes or prediabetes may be more inclined to consume erythritol as an alternative to sugar,” Dr. Hedrick added. “It will be important to design studies that include these individuals to determine if erythritol has an additive adverse effect on cardiac event risk.”
 

Criticism and Impact 

Critics have suggested the 30-gram dose of erythritol ingested by study participants is unrealistic. Dr. Hazen said that it’s not. 

Erythritol is often recommended as a one-to-one sugar replacement. And you could top 30 grams with a few servings of erythritol-sweetened ice cream or soda, Dr. Hazen said. 

“The dose that we used, it’s on the high end, but it’s well within a physiologically relevant level,” he said. 

Still others say the results are only relevant for people with preexisting heart trouble. But Dr. Hazen said they matter for the masses. 

“I think there’s a significant health concern at a population level that this work is underscoring,” he said. 

After all, heart disease risk factors like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking are common and quickly add up. 

“If you look at middle-aged America, most people who experience a heart attack or stroke do not know that they have coronary artery disease, and the first recognition of it is that event,” Dr. Hazen said. 

For now, Dr. Hazen recommends eating real sugar in moderation. He hopes future research will reveal a nonnutritive sweetener that doesn’t activate platelets. 
 

The Bigger Picture

The new research adds yet another piece to the puzzle of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are better than sugar. 

“I think these results are concerning,” said JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. They “ may help explain the surprising results in some observational studies that artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Manson, who was not involved in the new study, has conducted other research linking artificial sweetener use with stroke risk.

In an upcoming randomized clinical study, her team is comparing head-to-head sugar-sweetened beverages, drinks sweetened with calorie-free substitutes, and water to determine which is best for a range of cardiometabolic outcomes. 

“We need more research on this question,” she said, “because these artificial sweeteners are commonly used, and many people are assuming that their health outcomes will be better with the artificial sweeteners than with sugar-sweetened products.”

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

Is going sugar free really good advice for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors? 

That’s the question raised by new Cleveland Clinic research, which suggests that consuming erythritol, a sweetener widely found in sugar-free and keto food products, could spur a prothrombotic response. 

In the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 10 healthy participants ate 30 grams of erythritol. Thirty minutes later, their blood showed enhanced platelet aggregation and increased markers of platelet responsiveness and activation. 

Specifically, the researchers saw enhanced stimulus-dependent release of serotonin (a marker of platelet dense granules) and CXCL4 (a platelet alpha-granule marker). 

“ With every single person, you see a prothrombotic effect with every single test that we did,” said study author Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. By contrast, participants who ate 30 grams of glucose saw no such effect. 

The erythritol itself does not activate the platelets, Dr. Hazen said, rather it lowers the threshold for triggering a response. This could make someone more prone to clotting, raising heart attack and stroke risk over time.

Though the mechanism is unknown, Dr. Hazen has an idea. 

“There appears to be a receptor on platelets that is recognizing and sensing these sugar alcohols,” Dr. Hazen said, “much in the same way your taste bud for sweet is a receptor for recognizing a glucose or sugar molecule.” 

“We’re very interested in trying to figure out what the receptor is,” Dr. Hazen said, “because I think that then becomes a very interesting potential target for further investigation and study into how this is linked to causing heart disease.”
 

The Past and Future of Erythritol Research

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration classified erythritol as a “generally recognized as safe” food additive. A sugar alcohol that occurs naturally in foods like melon and grapes, erythritol is also manufactured by fermenting sugars. It’s about 70% as sweet as table sugar. Humans also produce small amounts of erythritol naturally: Our blood cells make it from glucose via the pentose phosphate pathway. 

Previous research from Dr. Hazen’s group linked erythritol to a risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and clotting. 

“Based on their previous study, I think this was a really important study to do in healthy individuals,” said Martha Field, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, who was not involved in the study.

The earlier paper analyzed blood samples from participants with unknown erythritol intake, including some taken before the sweetener, and it was as widespread as it is today. That made disentangling the effects of eating erythritol vs naturally producing it more difficult. 

By showing that eating erythritol raises markers associated with thrombosis, the new paper reinforces the importance of thinking about and developing a deeper understanding of what we put into our bodies. 

“This paper was conducted in healthy individuals — might this be particularly dangerous for individuals who are at increased risk of clotting?” asked Dr. Field. “There are lots of genetic polymorphisms that increase your risk for clotting disorders or your propensity to form thrombosis.” 

Field would like to see similar analyses of xylitol and sorbitol, other sugar alcohols found in sugar-free foods. And she called for more studies on erythritol that look at lower erythritol consumption over longer time periods. 

Registered dietitian nutritionist Valisa E. Hedrick, PhD, agreed: Much more work is needed in this area, particularly in higher-risk groups, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, said Dr. Hedrick, an associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, who was not involved in the study. 

“Because this study was conducted in healthy individuals, the impact of a small dose of glucose was negligible, as their body can effectively regulate blood glucose levels,” she said. “Because high blood glucose concentrations have also been shown to increase platelet reactivity, and consequently increase thrombosis potential, individuals who are not able to regulate their blood glucose levels, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, could potentially see a similar effect on the body as erythritol when consuming large amounts of sugar.” 

At the same time, “individuals with diabetes or prediabetes may be more inclined to consume erythritol as an alternative to sugar,” Dr. Hedrick added. “It will be important to design studies that include these individuals to determine if erythritol has an additive adverse effect on cardiac event risk.”
 

Criticism and Impact 

Critics have suggested the 30-gram dose of erythritol ingested by study participants is unrealistic. Dr. Hazen said that it’s not. 

Erythritol is often recommended as a one-to-one sugar replacement. And you could top 30 grams with a few servings of erythritol-sweetened ice cream or soda, Dr. Hazen said. 

“The dose that we used, it’s on the high end, but it’s well within a physiologically relevant level,” he said. 

Still others say the results are only relevant for people with preexisting heart trouble. But Dr. Hazen said they matter for the masses. 

“I think there’s a significant health concern at a population level that this work is underscoring,” he said. 

After all, heart disease risk factors like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking are common and quickly add up. 

“If you look at middle-aged America, most people who experience a heart attack or stroke do not know that they have coronary artery disease, and the first recognition of it is that event,” Dr. Hazen said. 

For now, Dr. Hazen recommends eating real sugar in moderation. He hopes future research will reveal a nonnutritive sweetener that doesn’t activate platelets. 
 

The Bigger Picture

The new research adds yet another piece to the puzzle of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are better than sugar. 

“I think these results are concerning,” said JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. They “ may help explain the surprising results in some observational studies that artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Manson, who was not involved in the new study, has conducted other research linking artificial sweetener use with stroke risk.

In an upcoming randomized clinical study, her team is comparing head-to-head sugar-sweetened beverages, drinks sweetened with calorie-free substitutes, and water to determine which is best for a range of cardiometabolic outcomes. 

“We need more research on this question,” she said, “because these artificial sweeteners are commonly used, and many people are assuming that their health outcomes will be better with the artificial sweeteners than with sugar-sweetened products.”

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

Is going sugar free really good advice for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors? 

That’s the question raised by new Cleveland Clinic research, which suggests that consuming erythritol, a sweetener widely found in sugar-free and keto food products, could spur a prothrombotic response. 

In the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 10 healthy participants ate 30 grams of erythritol. Thirty minutes later, their blood showed enhanced platelet aggregation and increased markers of platelet responsiveness and activation. 

Specifically, the researchers saw enhanced stimulus-dependent release of serotonin (a marker of platelet dense granules) and CXCL4 (a platelet alpha-granule marker). 

“ With every single person, you see a prothrombotic effect with every single test that we did,” said study author Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. By contrast, participants who ate 30 grams of glucose saw no such effect. 

The erythritol itself does not activate the platelets, Dr. Hazen said, rather it lowers the threshold for triggering a response. This could make someone more prone to clotting, raising heart attack and stroke risk over time.

Though the mechanism is unknown, Dr. Hazen has an idea. 

“There appears to be a receptor on platelets that is recognizing and sensing these sugar alcohols,” Dr. Hazen said, “much in the same way your taste bud for sweet is a receptor for recognizing a glucose or sugar molecule.” 

“We’re very interested in trying to figure out what the receptor is,” Dr. Hazen said, “because I think that then becomes a very interesting potential target for further investigation and study into how this is linked to causing heart disease.”
 

The Past and Future of Erythritol Research

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration classified erythritol as a “generally recognized as safe” food additive. A sugar alcohol that occurs naturally in foods like melon and grapes, erythritol is also manufactured by fermenting sugars. It’s about 70% as sweet as table sugar. Humans also produce small amounts of erythritol naturally: Our blood cells make it from glucose via the pentose phosphate pathway. 

Previous research from Dr. Hazen’s group linked erythritol to a risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and clotting. 

“Based on their previous study, I think this was a really important study to do in healthy individuals,” said Martha Field, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, who was not involved in the study.

The earlier paper analyzed blood samples from participants with unknown erythritol intake, including some taken before the sweetener, and it was as widespread as it is today. That made disentangling the effects of eating erythritol vs naturally producing it more difficult. 

By showing that eating erythritol raises markers associated with thrombosis, the new paper reinforces the importance of thinking about and developing a deeper understanding of what we put into our bodies. 

“This paper was conducted in healthy individuals — might this be particularly dangerous for individuals who are at increased risk of clotting?” asked Dr. Field. “There are lots of genetic polymorphisms that increase your risk for clotting disorders or your propensity to form thrombosis.” 

Field would like to see similar analyses of xylitol and sorbitol, other sugar alcohols found in sugar-free foods. And she called for more studies on erythritol that look at lower erythritol consumption over longer time periods. 

Registered dietitian nutritionist Valisa E. Hedrick, PhD, agreed: Much more work is needed in this area, particularly in higher-risk groups, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, said Dr. Hedrick, an associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, who was not involved in the study. 

“Because this study was conducted in healthy individuals, the impact of a small dose of glucose was negligible, as their body can effectively regulate blood glucose levels,” she said. “Because high blood glucose concentrations have also been shown to increase platelet reactivity, and consequently increase thrombosis potential, individuals who are not able to regulate their blood glucose levels, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, could potentially see a similar effect on the body as erythritol when consuming large amounts of sugar.” 

At the same time, “individuals with diabetes or prediabetes may be more inclined to consume erythritol as an alternative to sugar,” Dr. Hedrick added. “It will be important to design studies that include these individuals to determine if erythritol has an additive adverse effect on cardiac event risk.”
 

Criticism and Impact 

Critics have suggested the 30-gram dose of erythritol ingested by study participants is unrealistic. Dr. Hazen said that it’s not. 

Erythritol is often recommended as a one-to-one sugar replacement. And you could top 30 grams with a few servings of erythritol-sweetened ice cream or soda, Dr. Hazen said. 

“The dose that we used, it’s on the high end, but it’s well within a physiologically relevant level,” he said. 

Still others say the results are only relevant for people with preexisting heart trouble. But Dr. Hazen said they matter for the masses. 

“I think there’s a significant health concern at a population level that this work is underscoring,” he said. 

After all, heart disease risk factors like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking are common and quickly add up. 

“If you look at middle-aged America, most people who experience a heart attack or stroke do not know that they have coronary artery disease, and the first recognition of it is that event,” Dr. Hazen said. 

For now, Dr. Hazen recommends eating real sugar in moderation. He hopes future research will reveal a nonnutritive sweetener that doesn’t activate platelets. 
 

The Bigger Picture

The new research adds yet another piece to the puzzle of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are better than sugar. 

“I think these results are concerning,” said JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. They “ may help explain the surprising results in some observational studies that artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Manson, who was not involved in the new study, has conducted other research linking artificial sweetener use with stroke risk.

In an upcoming randomized clinical study, her team is comparing head-to-head sugar-sweetened beverages, drinks sweetened with calorie-free substitutes, and water to determine which is best for a range of cardiometabolic outcomes. 

“We need more research on this question,” she said, “because these artificial sweeteners are commonly used, and many people are assuming that their health outcomes will be better with the artificial sweeteners than with sugar-sweetened products.”

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

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA — A small fraction of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who are eligible for advanced therapies are actually getting them, reported investigators who conducted a big data analysis.

“Advanced PE therapy seems to be vulnerable to disparate use, and perhaps underuse,” Sahil Parikh, MD, a cardiovascular interventionalist at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, said when he presented results from the REAL-PE study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2024 Scientific Sessions.

The underuse of advanced PE therapies is “the controversy,” Dr. Parikh said after his presentation. “It remains unclear what the role of invasive therapy is in the management of so-called high-intermediate–risk people. There isn’t a Class 1 guideline recommendation, and there is a very rapidly evolving trend that we’re increasingly treating these patients invasively,” he said.

“However, if you come to these meetings [such as SCAI], you might think everyone is getting one of these devices, but these data show that’s not the case,” Dr. Parikh said.

The analysis mined deidentified data from Truveta, a collective of health systems that provides regulatory-grade electronic health record data for research. The database included 105 million diagnoses made from January 1, 2018, to May 5, 2023; according to the diagnosis codes, 435,296 of these were for pulmonary embolism, and according to the procedure codes, 2072 patients — 0.48% of all patients with a PE diagnosis — received advanced therapy.

The researchers accessed data on patients treated with ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy, identified from claims codes. Patient characteristics — age, race, ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, and diagnoses — were also accessed for the analysis. Earlier results were published in the January issue of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty Interventions. 
 

Less Intervention for Black Patients and Women

White patients were more likely to receive advanced therapy than were Black patients (0.5% vs 0.37%; P = .000), Dr. Parikh reported, and women were less likely to receive advanced therapy than were men (0.41% vs 0.55%; P = .000).

The only discernable differences in outcomes were in major bleeding events in the 7 days after the procedure, which affected more White patients than it did Black patients (13.9% vs 9.3%) and affected more women than it did men (16.6% vs 11.1%).

What’s noteworthy about this study is that it demonstrates the potential of advanced data analytics to identify disparities in care and outcomes, Dr. Parikh said during his presentation. “These analyses provide a means of evaluating disparities in real clinical practice, both in the area of PE and otherwise, and may also be used for real-time monitoring of clinical decision-making and decisional support,” he said. “We do think that both novel and established therapies can benefit equally from similar types of analyses.”
 

Big Data Signaling Disparities

“That’s where these data are helpful,” Dr. Parikh explained. They provide “a real snapshot of how many procedures are being performed and in what kinds of patients. The low number of patients getting the procedure would suggest that there are probably more patients who would be eligible for treatment based on some of the emerging consensus documents, and they’re not receiving them.”

The data are “hypotheses generating,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “These hypotheses have to be evaluated further in more granular databases.”

REAL-PE is also a “clarion call” for clinical trials of investigative devices going forward, he said. “In those trials, we need to endeavor to enroll enough women and men, minority and nonminority patients so that we can make meaningful assessments of differences in efficacy and safety.”

This study is “real proof that big data can be used to provide information on outcomes for patients in a very rapid manner; that’s really exciting,” said Ethan Korngold, MD, chair of structural and interventional cardiology at the Providence Health Institute in Portland, Oregon. “This is an area of great research with great innovation, and it’s proof that, with these type of techniques using artificial intelligence and big data, we can generate data quickly on how we’re doing and what kind of patients we’re reaching.”

Findings like these may also help identify sources of the disparities, Dr. Korngold added. 

“This shows we need to be reaching every patient with advanced therapies,” he said. “Different hospitals have different capabilities and different expertise in this area and they reach different patient populations. A lot of the difference in utilization stems from this fact,” he said.

“It just underscores the fact that we need to standardize our treatment approaches, and then we need to reach every person who’s suffering from this disease,” Dr. Korngold said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA — A small fraction of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who are eligible for advanced therapies are actually getting them, reported investigators who conducted a big data analysis.

“Advanced PE therapy seems to be vulnerable to disparate use, and perhaps underuse,” Sahil Parikh, MD, a cardiovascular interventionalist at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, said when he presented results from the REAL-PE study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2024 Scientific Sessions.

The underuse of advanced PE therapies is “the controversy,” Dr. Parikh said after his presentation. “It remains unclear what the role of invasive therapy is in the management of so-called high-intermediate–risk people. There isn’t a Class 1 guideline recommendation, and there is a very rapidly evolving trend that we’re increasingly treating these patients invasively,” he said.

“However, if you come to these meetings [such as SCAI], you might think everyone is getting one of these devices, but these data show that’s not the case,” Dr. Parikh said.

The analysis mined deidentified data from Truveta, a collective of health systems that provides regulatory-grade electronic health record data for research. The database included 105 million diagnoses made from January 1, 2018, to May 5, 2023; according to the diagnosis codes, 435,296 of these were for pulmonary embolism, and according to the procedure codes, 2072 patients — 0.48% of all patients with a PE diagnosis — received advanced therapy.

The researchers accessed data on patients treated with ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy, identified from claims codes. Patient characteristics — age, race, ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, and diagnoses — were also accessed for the analysis. Earlier results were published in the January issue of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty Interventions. 
 

Less Intervention for Black Patients and Women

White patients were more likely to receive advanced therapy than were Black patients (0.5% vs 0.37%; P = .000), Dr. Parikh reported, and women were less likely to receive advanced therapy than were men (0.41% vs 0.55%; P = .000).

The only discernable differences in outcomes were in major bleeding events in the 7 days after the procedure, which affected more White patients than it did Black patients (13.9% vs 9.3%) and affected more women than it did men (16.6% vs 11.1%).

What’s noteworthy about this study is that it demonstrates the potential of advanced data analytics to identify disparities in care and outcomes, Dr. Parikh said during his presentation. “These analyses provide a means of evaluating disparities in real clinical practice, both in the area of PE and otherwise, and may also be used for real-time monitoring of clinical decision-making and decisional support,” he said. “We do think that both novel and established therapies can benefit equally from similar types of analyses.”
 

Big Data Signaling Disparities

“That’s where these data are helpful,” Dr. Parikh explained. They provide “a real snapshot of how many procedures are being performed and in what kinds of patients. The low number of patients getting the procedure would suggest that there are probably more patients who would be eligible for treatment based on some of the emerging consensus documents, and they’re not receiving them.”

The data are “hypotheses generating,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “These hypotheses have to be evaluated further in more granular databases.”

REAL-PE is also a “clarion call” for clinical trials of investigative devices going forward, he said. “In those trials, we need to endeavor to enroll enough women and men, minority and nonminority patients so that we can make meaningful assessments of differences in efficacy and safety.”

This study is “real proof that big data can be used to provide information on outcomes for patients in a very rapid manner; that’s really exciting,” said Ethan Korngold, MD, chair of structural and interventional cardiology at the Providence Health Institute in Portland, Oregon. “This is an area of great research with great innovation, and it’s proof that, with these type of techniques using artificial intelligence and big data, we can generate data quickly on how we’re doing and what kind of patients we’re reaching.”

Findings like these may also help identify sources of the disparities, Dr. Korngold added. 

“This shows we need to be reaching every patient with advanced therapies,” he said. “Different hospitals have different capabilities and different expertise in this area and they reach different patient populations. A lot of the difference in utilization stems from this fact,” he said.

“It just underscores the fact that we need to standardize our treatment approaches, and then we need to reach every person who’s suffering from this disease,” Dr. Korngold said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA — A small fraction of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who are eligible for advanced therapies are actually getting them, reported investigators who conducted a big data analysis.

“Advanced PE therapy seems to be vulnerable to disparate use, and perhaps underuse,” Sahil Parikh, MD, a cardiovascular interventionalist at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York, said when he presented results from the REAL-PE study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2024 Scientific Sessions.

The underuse of advanced PE therapies is “the controversy,” Dr. Parikh said after his presentation. “It remains unclear what the role of invasive therapy is in the management of so-called high-intermediate–risk people. There isn’t a Class 1 guideline recommendation, and there is a very rapidly evolving trend that we’re increasingly treating these patients invasively,” he said.

“However, if you come to these meetings [such as SCAI], you might think everyone is getting one of these devices, but these data show that’s not the case,” Dr. Parikh said.

The analysis mined deidentified data from Truveta, a collective of health systems that provides regulatory-grade electronic health record data for research. The database included 105 million diagnoses made from January 1, 2018, to May 5, 2023; according to the diagnosis codes, 435,296 of these were for pulmonary embolism, and according to the procedure codes, 2072 patients — 0.48% of all patients with a PE diagnosis — received advanced therapy.

The researchers accessed data on patients treated with ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy, identified from claims codes. Patient characteristics — age, race, ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, and diagnoses — were also accessed for the analysis. Earlier results were published in the January issue of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angioplasty Interventions. 
 

Less Intervention for Black Patients and Women

White patients were more likely to receive advanced therapy than were Black patients (0.5% vs 0.37%; P = .000), Dr. Parikh reported, and women were less likely to receive advanced therapy than were men (0.41% vs 0.55%; P = .000).

The only discernable differences in outcomes were in major bleeding events in the 7 days after the procedure, which affected more White patients than it did Black patients (13.9% vs 9.3%) and affected more women than it did men (16.6% vs 11.1%).

What’s noteworthy about this study is that it demonstrates the potential of advanced data analytics to identify disparities in care and outcomes, Dr. Parikh said during his presentation. “These analyses provide a means of evaluating disparities in real clinical practice, both in the area of PE and otherwise, and may also be used for real-time monitoring of clinical decision-making and decisional support,” he said. “We do think that both novel and established therapies can benefit equally from similar types of analyses.”
 

Big Data Signaling Disparities

“That’s where these data are helpful,” Dr. Parikh explained. They provide “a real snapshot of how many procedures are being performed and in what kinds of patients. The low number of patients getting the procedure would suggest that there are probably more patients who would be eligible for treatment based on some of the emerging consensus documents, and they’re not receiving them.”

The data are “hypotheses generating,” Dr. Parikh said in an interview. “These hypotheses have to be evaluated further in more granular databases.”

REAL-PE is also a “clarion call” for clinical trials of investigative devices going forward, he said. “In those trials, we need to endeavor to enroll enough women and men, minority and nonminority patients so that we can make meaningful assessments of differences in efficacy and safety.”

This study is “real proof that big data can be used to provide information on outcomes for patients in a very rapid manner; that’s really exciting,” said Ethan Korngold, MD, chair of structural and interventional cardiology at the Providence Health Institute in Portland, Oregon. “This is an area of great research with great innovation, and it’s proof that, with these type of techniques using artificial intelligence and big data, we can generate data quickly on how we’re doing and what kind of patients we’re reaching.”

Findings like these may also help identify sources of the disparities, Dr. Korngold added. 

“This shows we need to be reaching every patient with advanced therapies,” he said. “Different hospitals have different capabilities and different expertise in this area and they reach different patient populations. A lot of the difference in utilization stems from this fact,” he said.

“It just underscores the fact that we need to standardize our treatment approaches, and then we need to reach every person who’s suffering from this disease,” Dr. Korngold said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has received breakthrough device designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay, developed by Roche in partnership with Amgen, is designed to identify adults with elevated Lp(a) levels who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies currently in development. 

Lp(a) is a type of lipoprotein that is genetically inherited. Elevated levels have been associated with an increased risk for heart disease, stroke, and other blood vessel diseases.

Worldwide, about 1 in 5 people have high Lp(a) levels that are not significantly affected by lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise. Elevated Lp(a) is particularly prevalent among women and people of African descent.

Lp(a) testing is “an important tool for clinicians, enabling them to make a more accurate assessment of [cardiovascular] risk, and it is expected to become a part of regular diagnostic testing in the coming years,” Roche said in a news release announcing the breakthrough designation for the Lp(a) blood test. 

If approved, the Tina-quant Lp(a) RxDx assay will be available on select Roche cobas platforms, the company reported.

Although low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles are much more abundant than Lp(a) particles and carry the greatest overall risk for heart disease, on a per-particle basis, atherogenic risk associated with Lp(a) is about six times higher than that associated with LDL cholesterol, a recent study showed.

There currently are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower Lp(a) levels in the United States, but several hopefuls are in development. 

One is zerlasiran (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, or “gene silencing” therapy, which binds to and temporarily blocks the action of the LPA gene, which encodes for apolipoprotein A, a dominant and rate-limiting component in the hepatic synthesis of the Lp(a) particle.

Treatment with zerlasiran produced significant and sustained reductions in Lp(a) concentrations in adults with elevated Lp(a) in the phase 1 APOLLO trial and the phase 2 ALPACAR-360 trial.

Other siRNA agents in development to lower Lp(a) levels include pelacarsen, lepodisiran, olpasiran, and muvalaplin.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved danicopan (Voydeya, AstraZeneca) as an add-on therapy to treat extravascular hemolysis in adults receiving ravulizumab or eculizumab for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

PNH is a rare blood disorder affecting 1-10 individuals per million. The condition, which eliminates red blood cells and leads to blood clots and impaired bone marrow function, can cause life-threatening anemia, thrombosis, and bone marrow dysfunction. About half of people with the condition die from thrombotic complications.

Ravulizumab and eculizumab, also both made by AstraZeneca, inhibit the destruction of red blood cells. However, 10%-20% of patients treated with the antibody infusions experience significant extravascular hemolysis, in which these surviving red blood cells are eliminated by the spleen and liver. Extravascular hemolysis can lead to ongoing anemia, which can lead patients to require blood transfusions.

Danicopan, an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, is designed to control intravascular hemolysis and prevent extravascular hemolysis.

Approval of the oral medication was based on the phase 3 ALPHA trial in 63 patients with PNH who received ravulizumab or eculizumab and experienced significant extravascular hemolysis. These patients were randomized 2:1 to either danicopan or placebo.

Danicopan add-on significantly improved hemoglobin concentrations at 12 weeks (least squares mean improvement from baseline: 2.94 g/dL with danicopan vs 0.50 g/dL with placebo) and made transfusions less likely.

Headache, nausea, arthralgia, and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent side effects. Serious adverse events in the danicopan group included cholecystitis and COVID-19 in one patient each.

Danicopan carries a boxed warning of serious infections and is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved danicopan (Voydeya, AstraZeneca) as an add-on therapy to treat extravascular hemolysis in adults receiving ravulizumab or eculizumab for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

PNH is a rare blood disorder affecting 1-10 individuals per million. The condition, which eliminates red blood cells and leads to blood clots and impaired bone marrow function, can cause life-threatening anemia, thrombosis, and bone marrow dysfunction. About half of people with the condition die from thrombotic complications.

Ravulizumab and eculizumab, also both made by AstraZeneca, inhibit the destruction of red blood cells. However, 10%-20% of patients treated with the antibody infusions experience significant extravascular hemolysis, in which these surviving red blood cells are eliminated by the spleen and liver. Extravascular hemolysis can lead to ongoing anemia, which can lead patients to require blood transfusions.

Danicopan, an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, is designed to control intravascular hemolysis and prevent extravascular hemolysis.

Approval of the oral medication was based on the phase 3 ALPHA trial in 63 patients with PNH who received ravulizumab or eculizumab and experienced significant extravascular hemolysis. These patients were randomized 2:1 to either danicopan or placebo.

Danicopan add-on significantly improved hemoglobin concentrations at 12 weeks (least squares mean improvement from baseline: 2.94 g/dL with danicopan vs 0.50 g/dL with placebo) and made transfusions less likely.

Headache, nausea, arthralgia, and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent side effects. Serious adverse events in the danicopan group included cholecystitis and COVID-19 in one patient each.

Danicopan carries a boxed warning of serious infections and is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved danicopan (Voydeya, AstraZeneca) as an add-on therapy to treat extravascular hemolysis in adults receiving ravulizumab or eculizumab for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

PNH is a rare blood disorder affecting 1-10 individuals per million. The condition, which eliminates red blood cells and leads to blood clots and impaired bone marrow function, can cause life-threatening anemia, thrombosis, and bone marrow dysfunction. About half of people with the condition die from thrombotic complications.

Ravulizumab and eculizumab, also both made by AstraZeneca, inhibit the destruction of red blood cells. However, 10%-20% of patients treated with the antibody infusions experience significant extravascular hemolysis, in which these surviving red blood cells are eliminated by the spleen and liver. Extravascular hemolysis can lead to ongoing anemia, which can lead patients to require blood transfusions.

Danicopan, an investigational, first-in-class, oral complement factor D inhibitor, is designed to control intravascular hemolysis and prevent extravascular hemolysis.

Approval of the oral medication was based on the phase 3 ALPHA trial in 63 patients with PNH who received ravulizumab or eculizumab and experienced significant extravascular hemolysis. These patients were randomized 2:1 to either danicopan or placebo.

Danicopan add-on significantly improved hemoglobin concentrations at 12 weeks (least squares mean improvement from baseline: 2.94 g/dL with danicopan vs 0.50 g/dL with placebo) and made transfusions less likely.

Headache, nausea, arthralgia, and diarrhea were the most common treatment-emergent side effects. Serious adverse events in the danicopan group included cholecystitis and COVID-19 in one patient each.

Danicopan carries a boxed warning of serious infections and is available only through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.

These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. 

The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

Important Implications

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”

This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”

Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.

“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.

The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton. 

Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs. 

They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.

The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
 

Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding 

Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).

In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.

The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.

For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).

“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.

However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.

With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).

“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.

However, she cautioned that more research is needed.

As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
 

‘Really Great News’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.

“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.

The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.

While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.

He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.

Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”

The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.

These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. 

The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

Important Implications

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”

This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”

Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.

“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.

The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton. 

Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs. 

They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.

The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
 

Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding 

Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).

In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.

The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.

For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).

“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.

However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.

With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).

“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.

However, she cautioned that more research is needed.

As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
 

‘Really Great News’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.

“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.

The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.

While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.

He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.

Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”

The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.

These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. 

The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

Important Implications

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”

This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”

Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.

“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.

The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton. 

Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs. 

They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.

Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.

The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
 

Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding 

Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).

In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.

The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.

For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).

“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.

However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.

With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).

“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.

However, she cautioned that more research is needed.

As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
 

‘Really Great News’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.

“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.

The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.

While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.

However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.

He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.

Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”

The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.