CHEST Physician

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Arterial stiffness increases the risk for developing glaucoma, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• To study the link between arterial stiffness and glaucoma, the researchers evaluated 4713 individuals (mean age, 66 years; 58% men) without the eye condition at baseline between April 2011 and November 2012.
• They assessed arterial stiffness by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity, estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and aortic pulse pressure.
• The primary outcome was incident glaucoma, identified from prescriptions for eye drops or hospital records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 people in the study developed glaucoma over a mean follow-up period of 10.5 years.
• For every standard deviation increase in aortic pulse wave velocity, participants had a 32% higher risk for developing glaucoma (standardized hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), while estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was associated with a 37% higher risk (sHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).
• Incident glaucoma increased across all quartiles of arterial stiffness, with the highest risk observed in the fourth quartile for aortic pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.36-4.26), estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.27-4.13), and aortic pulse pressure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.82).
• The cumulative incidence of glaucoma rose with increases in arterial stiffness. This trend was statistically significant for both aortic and estimated pulse wave velocity (P < .0001) and aortic pulse pressure (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Arterial stiffness…which can be easily and accurately measured, could be used as a tool in clinical practice [as part of routine blood pressure measurement] to help identify people at risk of glaucoma and as a therapeutic target to prevent glaucoma progression,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Angela L. Beros, MPH, of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort study did not clinically assess for glaucoma, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals with the condition. Not all participants with incident glaucoma, particularly those unaware of their diagnosis, may have been identified. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness, which are common risk factors for glaucoma, were not included in the multivariate analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Arterial stiffness increases the risk for developing glaucoma, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• To study the link between arterial stiffness and glaucoma, the researchers evaluated 4713 individuals (mean age, 66 years; 58% men) without the eye condition at baseline between April 2011 and November 2012.
• They assessed arterial stiffness by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity, estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and aortic pulse pressure.
• The primary outcome was incident glaucoma, identified from prescriptions for eye drops or hospital records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 people in the study developed glaucoma over a mean follow-up period of 10.5 years.
• For every standard deviation increase in aortic pulse wave velocity, participants had a 32% higher risk for developing glaucoma (standardized hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), while estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was associated with a 37% higher risk (sHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).
• Incident glaucoma increased across all quartiles of arterial stiffness, with the highest risk observed in the fourth quartile for aortic pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.36-4.26), estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.27-4.13), and aortic pulse pressure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.82).
• The cumulative incidence of glaucoma rose with increases in arterial stiffness. This trend was statistically significant for both aortic and estimated pulse wave velocity (P < .0001) and aortic pulse pressure (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Arterial stiffness…which can be easily and accurately measured, could be used as a tool in clinical practice [as part of routine blood pressure measurement] to help identify people at risk of glaucoma and as a therapeutic target to prevent glaucoma progression,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Angela L. Beros, MPH, of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort study did not clinically assess for glaucoma, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals with the condition. Not all participants with incident glaucoma, particularly those unaware of their diagnosis, may have been identified. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness, which are common risk factors for glaucoma, were not included in the multivariate analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Arterial stiffness increases the risk for developing glaucoma, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• To study the link between arterial stiffness and glaucoma, the researchers evaluated 4713 individuals (mean age, 66 years; 58% men) without the eye condition at baseline between April 2011 and November 2012.
• They assessed arterial stiffness by measuring aortic pulse wave velocity, estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, and aortic pulse pressure.
• The primary outcome was incident glaucoma, identified from prescriptions for eye drops or hospital records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 people in the study developed glaucoma over a mean follow-up period of 10.5 years.
• For every standard deviation increase in aortic pulse wave velocity, participants had a 32% higher risk for developing glaucoma (standardized hazard ratio [sHR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), while estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was associated with a 37% higher risk (sHR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).
• Incident glaucoma increased across all quartiles of arterial stiffness, with the highest risk observed in the fourth quartile for aortic pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.36-4.26), estimated carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.27-4.13), and aortic pulse pressure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.82).
• The cumulative incidence of glaucoma rose with increases in arterial stiffness. This trend was statistically significant for both aortic and estimated pulse wave velocity (P < .0001) and aortic pulse pressure (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Arterial stiffness…which can be easily and accurately measured, could be used as a tool in clinical practice [as part of routine blood pressure measurement] to help identify people at risk of glaucoma and as a therapeutic target to prevent glaucoma progression,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Angela L. Beros, MPH, of the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cohort study did not clinically assess for glaucoma, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals with the condition. Not all participants with incident glaucoma, particularly those unaware of their diagnosis, may have been identified. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness, which are common risk factors for glaucoma, were not included in the multivariate analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation, based on data from more than 900 individuals.

Data from a phase 3 trial known as NOTUS were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, works by inhibiting the signaling of the interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 pathways and is approved for many conditions characterized by type 2 inflammation, wrote Surya P. Bhatt, MD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues in the NEJM study.

“Last year, we showed in the BOREAS trial that dupilumab was very effective in lowering exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD who continued to have frequent exacerbations despite being on maximal inhaled therapy,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

12 Months of COPD, Triple Inhaler Therapy

In the NOTUS study, the researchers randomized 470 adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation (defined as a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µL) to 300-mg subcutaneous dupilumab and 465 to a placebo every 2 weeks. Patients were enrolled between July 2020 and May 2023.

The study population included adults aged 40-85 years with physician-diagnosed COPD for at least 12 months who had received background triple inhaler therapy (an inhaled glucocorticoid agent plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]–long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] or LAMA-LABA alone) for at least 3 months and at a stable dose for at least 1 month. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

The primary endpoint was a reduction in the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations at 52 weeks.

At 52 weeks, the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower (34%) in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (0.86 vs 1.30, P < .001).

Patients in the dupilumab group also saw a significantly greater improvement in lung function compared with individuals in the placebo group based on prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 12 weeks (least squares mean change of 139 mL vs 57 mL). This improvement was sustained at 52 weeks (least squares mean change of 115 mL vs 54 mL).

Improvement in respiratory symptom severity based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was another secondary endpoint, and changes in total score were greater in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (least squares mean change of 9.8 vs 6.4).

Safety outcomes were similar between the dupilumab and placebo groups, with approximately 66% of patients in each group reporting adverse events during the 52-week study period. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% and 15.9% of dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, and adverse events resulting in death occurred in 2.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The most common adverse events were COVID-19, which occurred in 9.4% and 8.2% of the dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, followed by headache, COPD, and nasopharyngitis. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in three patients in the dupilumab group and seven patients in the placebo group.

The findings were limited by several factors including the reduced sample size for 52-week endpoints because of the earlier analysis and the primarily White study population, the researchers noted. The study was conducted in part during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which contributed to healthcare disruptions and behavior changes that decreased exposure to viral respiratory infections, they wrote in their discussion. However, the results were strengthened by the large numbers and international population without other major pulmonary diseases, such as asthma, and the 34% reduction in exacerbations with dupilumab vs placebo is clinically significant, they said.

Data May Drive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval

In the BOREAS trial, dupilumab also improved lung function and quality of life, with no notable safety concerns. “As with any trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a medication, it is important to confirm the findings in a replicative study,” said Dr. Bhatt. “With NOTUS, we confirmed the findings of BOREAS,” and the researchers were reassured by the substantial reduction in exacerbation frequency and the replication of key secondary outcomes, he said.

With the NOTUS study, “two randomized trials have now shown near identical reductions in exacerbation frequency in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with COPD with type 2 inflammation and frequent exacerbations,” as well as a significant and meaningful improvement in lung function, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “We hope these trials pave for the way for regulatory body approval of dupilumab for clinical use,” he said. Looking ahead, more studies are needed to test the potential disease modification effects of dupilumab in patients with COPD, he added.

Potential Change in Patient Management

Approximately 20%-40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation with elevated blood eosinophil count, and this subset of patients has an increased risk for exacerbations, with worsening lung function and quality of life, Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Prior phase 3 studies have shown that dupilumab, a blocker of IL-4 and IL-13 pathways, could effectively reduce exacerbations and improve lung function in these patients, and the NOTUS study aimed to confirm the findings in a larger, more diverse population, said Dr. Narendra, who was not involved in the study.

The NOTUS study represents a paradigm shift in the management of COPD patients with type 2 inflammation, said Narendra. “This study validates the previous BOREAS trial and has shown that dupilumab reduces exacerbations, improves lung function and quality of life, and potentially slows disease progression,” she said.

If approved, potential barriers to the use of dupilumab in practice include cost and insurance coverage, education and dissemination of study findings, and limited data on side effects, said Dr. Narendra.

“While the NOTUS study provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of dupilumab over 52 weeks, longer-term studies are needed to understand the sustained benefits and risks of continued treatment,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization. “Studies comparing dupilumab with other biological agents and newer COPD treatments could provide insights into its relative efficacy and position in treatment protocols,” she said.

In addition, further research into dupilumab’s underlying mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation in COPD and inform the development of new treatments, Dr. Narendra said. “These steps will help integrate dupilumab more effectively into clinical practice and optimize its use for COPD patients with type 2 inflammation,” she noted.

Dupilumab is undergoing Priority Review by the FDA as an add-on maintenance therapy for adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation, with a target action date of June 27, 2024, according to a company press release.

The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Narendra had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of CHEST Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation, based on data from more than 900 individuals.

Data from a phase 3 trial known as NOTUS were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, works by inhibiting the signaling of the interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 pathways and is approved for many conditions characterized by type 2 inflammation, wrote Surya P. Bhatt, MD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues in the NEJM study.

“Last year, we showed in the BOREAS trial that dupilumab was very effective in lowering exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD who continued to have frequent exacerbations despite being on maximal inhaled therapy,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

12 Months of COPD, Triple Inhaler Therapy

In the NOTUS study, the researchers randomized 470 adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation (defined as a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µL) to 300-mg subcutaneous dupilumab and 465 to a placebo every 2 weeks. Patients were enrolled between July 2020 and May 2023.

The study population included adults aged 40-85 years with physician-diagnosed COPD for at least 12 months who had received background triple inhaler therapy (an inhaled glucocorticoid agent plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]–long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] or LAMA-LABA alone) for at least 3 months and at a stable dose for at least 1 month. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

The primary endpoint was a reduction in the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations at 52 weeks.

At 52 weeks, the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower (34%) in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (0.86 vs 1.30, P < .001).

Patients in the dupilumab group also saw a significantly greater improvement in lung function compared with individuals in the placebo group based on prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 12 weeks (least squares mean change of 139 mL vs 57 mL). This improvement was sustained at 52 weeks (least squares mean change of 115 mL vs 54 mL).

Improvement in respiratory symptom severity based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was another secondary endpoint, and changes in total score were greater in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (least squares mean change of 9.8 vs 6.4).

Safety outcomes were similar between the dupilumab and placebo groups, with approximately 66% of patients in each group reporting adverse events during the 52-week study period. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% and 15.9% of dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, and adverse events resulting in death occurred in 2.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The most common adverse events were COVID-19, which occurred in 9.4% and 8.2% of the dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, followed by headache, COPD, and nasopharyngitis. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in three patients in the dupilumab group and seven patients in the placebo group.

The findings were limited by several factors including the reduced sample size for 52-week endpoints because of the earlier analysis and the primarily White study population, the researchers noted. The study was conducted in part during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which contributed to healthcare disruptions and behavior changes that decreased exposure to viral respiratory infections, they wrote in their discussion. However, the results were strengthened by the large numbers and international population without other major pulmonary diseases, such as asthma, and the 34% reduction in exacerbations with dupilumab vs placebo is clinically significant, they said.

Data May Drive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval

In the BOREAS trial, dupilumab also improved lung function and quality of life, with no notable safety concerns. “As with any trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a medication, it is important to confirm the findings in a replicative study,” said Dr. Bhatt. “With NOTUS, we confirmed the findings of BOREAS,” and the researchers were reassured by the substantial reduction in exacerbation frequency and the replication of key secondary outcomes, he said.

With the NOTUS study, “two randomized trials have now shown near identical reductions in exacerbation frequency in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with COPD with type 2 inflammation and frequent exacerbations,” as well as a significant and meaningful improvement in lung function, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “We hope these trials pave for the way for regulatory body approval of dupilumab for clinical use,” he said. Looking ahead, more studies are needed to test the potential disease modification effects of dupilumab in patients with COPD, he added.

Potential Change in Patient Management

Approximately 20%-40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation with elevated blood eosinophil count, and this subset of patients has an increased risk for exacerbations, with worsening lung function and quality of life, Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Prior phase 3 studies have shown that dupilumab, a blocker of IL-4 and IL-13 pathways, could effectively reduce exacerbations and improve lung function in these patients, and the NOTUS study aimed to confirm the findings in a larger, more diverse population, said Dr. Narendra, who was not involved in the study.

The NOTUS study represents a paradigm shift in the management of COPD patients with type 2 inflammation, said Narendra. “This study validates the previous BOREAS trial and has shown that dupilumab reduces exacerbations, improves lung function and quality of life, and potentially slows disease progression,” she said.

If approved, potential barriers to the use of dupilumab in practice include cost and insurance coverage, education and dissemination of study findings, and limited data on side effects, said Dr. Narendra.

“While the NOTUS study provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of dupilumab over 52 weeks, longer-term studies are needed to understand the sustained benefits and risks of continued treatment,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization. “Studies comparing dupilumab with other biological agents and newer COPD treatments could provide insights into its relative efficacy and position in treatment protocols,” she said.

In addition, further research into dupilumab’s underlying mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation in COPD and inform the development of new treatments, Dr. Narendra said. “These steps will help integrate dupilumab more effectively into clinical practice and optimize its use for COPD patients with type 2 inflammation,” she noted.

Dupilumab is undergoing Priority Review by the FDA as an add-on maintenance therapy for adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation, with a target action date of June 27, 2024, according to a company press release.

The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Narendra had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of CHEST Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation, based on data from more than 900 individuals.

Data from a phase 3 trial known as NOTUS were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, works by inhibiting the signaling of the interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 pathways and is approved for many conditions characterized by type 2 inflammation, wrote Surya P. Bhatt, MD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues in the NEJM study.

“Last year, we showed in the BOREAS trial that dupilumab was very effective in lowering exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD who continued to have frequent exacerbations despite being on maximal inhaled therapy,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

12 Months of COPD, Triple Inhaler Therapy

In the NOTUS study, the researchers randomized 470 adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation (defined as a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µL) to 300-mg subcutaneous dupilumab and 465 to a placebo every 2 weeks. Patients were enrolled between July 2020 and May 2023.

The study population included adults aged 40-85 years with physician-diagnosed COPD for at least 12 months who had received background triple inhaler therapy (an inhaled glucocorticoid agent plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]–long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] or LAMA-LABA alone) for at least 3 months and at a stable dose for at least 1 month. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

The primary endpoint was a reduction in the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations at 52 weeks.

At 52 weeks, the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower (34%) in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (0.86 vs 1.30, P < .001).

Patients in the dupilumab group also saw a significantly greater improvement in lung function compared with individuals in the placebo group based on prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 12 weeks (least squares mean change of 139 mL vs 57 mL). This improvement was sustained at 52 weeks (least squares mean change of 115 mL vs 54 mL).

Improvement in respiratory symptom severity based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was another secondary endpoint, and changes in total score were greater in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (least squares mean change of 9.8 vs 6.4).

Safety outcomes were similar between the dupilumab and placebo groups, with approximately 66% of patients in each group reporting adverse events during the 52-week study period. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% and 15.9% of dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, and adverse events resulting in death occurred in 2.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The most common adverse events were COVID-19, which occurred in 9.4% and 8.2% of the dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, followed by headache, COPD, and nasopharyngitis. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in three patients in the dupilumab group and seven patients in the placebo group.

The findings were limited by several factors including the reduced sample size for 52-week endpoints because of the earlier analysis and the primarily White study population, the researchers noted. The study was conducted in part during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which contributed to healthcare disruptions and behavior changes that decreased exposure to viral respiratory infections, they wrote in their discussion. However, the results were strengthened by the large numbers and international population without other major pulmonary diseases, such as asthma, and the 34% reduction in exacerbations with dupilumab vs placebo is clinically significant, they said.

Data May Drive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval

In the BOREAS trial, dupilumab also improved lung function and quality of life, with no notable safety concerns. “As with any trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a medication, it is important to confirm the findings in a replicative study,” said Dr. Bhatt. “With NOTUS, we confirmed the findings of BOREAS,” and the researchers were reassured by the substantial reduction in exacerbation frequency and the replication of key secondary outcomes, he said.

With the NOTUS study, “two randomized trials have now shown near identical reductions in exacerbation frequency in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with COPD with type 2 inflammation and frequent exacerbations,” as well as a significant and meaningful improvement in lung function, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “We hope these trials pave for the way for regulatory body approval of dupilumab for clinical use,” he said. Looking ahead, more studies are needed to test the potential disease modification effects of dupilumab in patients with COPD, he added.

Potential Change in Patient Management

Approximately 20%-40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation with elevated blood eosinophil count, and this subset of patients has an increased risk for exacerbations, with worsening lung function and quality of life, Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Prior phase 3 studies have shown that dupilumab, a blocker of IL-4 and IL-13 pathways, could effectively reduce exacerbations and improve lung function in these patients, and the NOTUS study aimed to confirm the findings in a larger, more diverse population, said Dr. Narendra, who was not involved in the study.

The NOTUS study represents a paradigm shift in the management of COPD patients with type 2 inflammation, said Narendra. “This study validates the previous BOREAS trial and has shown that dupilumab reduces exacerbations, improves lung function and quality of life, and potentially slows disease progression,” she said.

If approved, potential barriers to the use of dupilumab in practice include cost and insurance coverage, education and dissemination of study findings, and limited data on side effects, said Dr. Narendra.

“While the NOTUS study provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of dupilumab over 52 weeks, longer-term studies are needed to understand the sustained benefits and risks of continued treatment,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization. “Studies comparing dupilumab with other biological agents and newer COPD treatments could provide insights into its relative efficacy and position in treatment protocols,” she said.

In addition, further research into dupilumab’s underlying mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation in COPD and inform the development of new treatments, Dr. Narendra said. “These steps will help integrate dupilumab more effectively into clinical practice and optimize its use for COPD patients with type 2 inflammation,” she noted.

Dupilumab is undergoing Priority Review by the FDA as an add-on maintenance therapy for adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation, with a target action date of June 27, 2024, according to a company press release.

The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Narendra had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of CHEST Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) significantly improved lung function in a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), based on data from more than 200 individuals.

BLVR has shown promising results in previous studies for carefully selected patients with COPD, said Michael J. Nicholson, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. However, those with AATD have often been excluded from large BLVR trials, so data on its effectiveness in this population are limited, he said.

“The distinct pathophysiology of AATD poses challenges in extrapolating findings from trials involving COPD patients without AATD,” Dr. Nicholson noted. “Variations in affected lung lobes and disease progression are major differences between the AATD and non-AATD populations; we sought to examine if BLVR could provide significant, sustained benefit to AATD patients despite their differences from the typical COPD cohort,” he said.

Patients With COPD and AATD

In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference, Dr. Nicholson and colleagues reviewed data from 238 adults with COPD including 14 with AATD who underwent BLVR at a single center between August 2018 and December 2022. Pulmonary function test data were collected at baseline and at a median of 7 months post-BLVR. The mean age of patients with AATD was 61.5 years, and 79% were men.

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) improvement greater than 15%. Half of the patients with AATD achieved this outcome, with a median improvement in FEV1 of 110 mL and a significant difference in pre- and post-BLVR FEV1 volume based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W = 11.5; P < .05).

Patients with AATD also showed significant improvement in several secondary outcomes including BODE index, residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), RV/TLC ratio, and inspiratory capacity/RV ratio between pre- and post-BLVR.

“The sustained improvements seen at 7 months post-BLVR in patients with lower lobe disease were unexpected and promising,” Dr. Nicholson said in an interview. “In contrast to the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which found lung volume reduction surgery ineffective for lower lobe disease, our study revealed significant improvements in lower lobe disease following BLVR,” he said. The sustained improvements up to 7 months post-BLVR are encouraging, given clinical concerns that the ongoing destruction of lung tissue in AATD could cause initial BLVR improvements to regress, he added.

Overall, the results suggest that BLVR is an effective therapy for appropriately selected patients with AATD and COPD, and that significant improvement in lung function can be achieved regardless of the affected lobe, Dr. Nicholson said.

“The primary obstacles to widespread BLVR implementation include the scarcity of equipment, as well as insufficient education and training for pulmonologists outside of major academic institutions,” Dr. Nicholson told this news organization. “Successful outcomes in BLVR require clinicians to have a deep understanding of patient selection criteria, extensive training in BLVR techniques, and access to the necessary technology within their facilities,” he said. However, BLVR has been integrated into pulmonary and interventional pulmonary fellowships nationwide, which paves the way for a new generation of pulmonologists to expand the use of the procedure, he said.

Looking ahead, prospective examination of BLVR vs the current standard of care in patients with AATD would provide invaluable data, Dr. Nicholson said. Since the presentation of the study at the meeting, additional patient data have been added to the analysis and increased the power of the findings, he said. “We intend to extend our assessment of pulmonary function testing beyond 7 months post-BLVR to evaluate the persistence of improvements in the long term,” he added.

Study Confirms Benefits for Wider Patient Population

“Lung volume reduction is an important intervention in patients with severe emphysema,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, in an interview. Most emphysema is in the upper lobes, but it tends to occur more in the lower lobes in patients with AATD, said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were not especially surprising, but they were reassuring, Dr. Mannino told this news organization. “We know this intervention works in those with severe emphysema,” and it was helpful to confirm similar success in patients with AATD, he said.

The implications for practice are that BLVR is both a safe and an effective intervention for patients with lower or upper lobe emphysema, although longer-term follow-up studies are needed, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) significantly improved lung function in a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), based on data from more than 200 individuals.

BLVR has shown promising results in previous studies for carefully selected patients with COPD, said Michael J. Nicholson, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. However, those with AATD have often been excluded from large BLVR trials, so data on its effectiveness in this population are limited, he said.

“The distinct pathophysiology of AATD poses challenges in extrapolating findings from trials involving COPD patients without AATD,” Dr. Nicholson noted. “Variations in affected lung lobes and disease progression are major differences between the AATD and non-AATD populations; we sought to examine if BLVR could provide significant, sustained benefit to AATD patients despite their differences from the typical COPD cohort,” he said.

Patients With COPD and AATD

In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference, Dr. Nicholson and colleagues reviewed data from 238 adults with COPD including 14 with AATD who underwent BLVR at a single center between August 2018 and December 2022. Pulmonary function test data were collected at baseline and at a median of 7 months post-BLVR. The mean age of patients with AATD was 61.5 years, and 79% were men.

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) improvement greater than 15%. Half of the patients with AATD achieved this outcome, with a median improvement in FEV1 of 110 mL and a significant difference in pre- and post-BLVR FEV1 volume based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W = 11.5; P < .05).

Patients with AATD also showed significant improvement in several secondary outcomes including BODE index, residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), RV/TLC ratio, and inspiratory capacity/RV ratio between pre- and post-BLVR.

“The sustained improvements seen at 7 months post-BLVR in patients with lower lobe disease were unexpected and promising,” Dr. Nicholson said in an interview. “In contrast to the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which found lung volume reduction surgery ineffective for lower lobe disease, our study revealed significant improvements in lower lobe disease following BLVR,” he said. The sustained improvements up to 7 months post-BLVR are encouraging, given clinical concerns that the ongoing destruction of lung tissue in AATD could cause initial BLVR improvements to regress, he added.

Overall, the results suggest that BLVR is an effective therapy for appropriately selected patients with AATD and COPD, and that significant improvement in lung function can be achieved regardless of the affected lobe, Dr. Nicholson said.

“The primary obstacles to widespread BLVR implementation include the scarcity of equipment, as well as insufficient education and training for pulmonologists outside of major academic institutions,” Dr. Nicholson told this news organization. “Successful outcomes in BLVR require clinicians to have a deep understanding of patient selection criteria, extensive training in BLVR techniques, and access to the necessary technology within their facilities,” he said. However, BLVR has been integrated into pulmonary and interventional pulmonary fellowships nationwide, which paves the way for a new generation of pulmonologists to expand the use of the procedure, he said.

Looking ahead, prospective examination of BLVR vs the current standard of care in patients with AATD would provide invaluable data, Dr. Nicholson said. Since the presentation of the study at the meeting, additional patient data have been added to the analysis and increased the power of the findings, he said. “We intend to extend our assessment of pulmonary function testing beyond 7 months post-BLVR to evaluate the persistence of improvements in the long term,” he added.

Study Confirms Benefits for Wider Patient Population

“Lung volume reduction is an important intervention in patients with severe emphysema,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, in an interview. Most emphysema is in the upper lobes, but it tends to occur more in the lower lobes in patients with AATD, said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were not especially surprising, but they were reassuring, Dr. Mannino told this news organization. “We know this intervention works in those with severe emphysema,” and it was helpful to confirm similar success in patients with AATD, he said.

The implications for practice are that BLVR is both a safe and an effective intervention for patients with lower or upper lobe emphysema, although longer-term follow-up studies are needed, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) significantly improved lung function in a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), based on data from more than 200 individuals.

BLVR has shown promising results in previous studies for carefully selected patients with COPD, said Michael J. Nicholson, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. However, those with AATD have often been excluded from large BLVR trials, so data on its effectiveness in this population are limited, he said.

“The distinct pathophysiology of AATD poses challenges in extrapolating findings from trials involving COPD patients without AATD,” Dr. Nicholson noted. “Variations in affected lung lobes and disease progression are major differences between the AATD and non-AATD populations; we sought to examine if BLVR could provide significant, sustained benefit to AATD patients despite their differences from the typical COPD cohort,” he said.

Patients With COPD and AATD

In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference, Dr. Nicholson and colleagues reviewed data from 238 adults with COPD including 14 with AATD who underwent BLVR at a single center between August 2018 and December 2022. Pulmonary function test data were collected at baseline and at a median of 7 months post-BLVR. The mean age of patients with AATD was 61.5 years, and 79% were men.

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) improvement greater than 15%. Half of the patients with AATD achieved this outcome, with a median improvement in FEV1 of 110 mL and a significant difference in pre- and post-BLVR FEV1 volume based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W = 11.5; P < .05).

Patients with AATD also showed significant improvement in several secondary outcomes including BODE index, residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), RV/TLC ratio, and inspiratory capacity/RV ratio between pre- and post-BLVR.

“The sustained improvements seen at 7 months post-BLVR in patients with lower lobe disease were unexpected and promising,” Dr. Nicholson said in an interview. “In contrast to the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which found lung volume reduction surgery ineffective for lower lobe disease, our study revealed significant improvements in lower lobe disease following BLVR,” he said. The sustained improvements up to 7 months post-BLVR are encouraging, given clinical concerns that the ongoing destruction of lung tissue in AATD could cause initial BLVR improvements to regress, he added.

Overall, the results suggest that BLVR is an effective therapy for appropriately selected patients with AATD and COPD, and that significant improvement in lung function can be achieved regardless of the affected lobe, Dr. Nicholson said.

“The primary obstacles to widespread BLVR implementation include the scarcity of equipment, as well as insufficient education and training for pulmonologists outside of major academic institutions,” Dr. Nicholson told this news organization. “Successful outcomes in BLVR require clinicians to have a deep understanding of patient selection criteria, extensive training in BLVR techniques, and access to the necessary technology within their facilities,” he said. However, BLVR has been integrated into pulmonary and interventional pulmonary fellowships nationwide, which paves the way for a new generation of pulmonologists to expand the use of the procedure, he said.

Looking ahead, prospective examination of BLVR vs the current standard of care in patients with AATD would provide invaluable data, Dr. Nicholson said. Since the presentation of the study at the meeting, additional patient data have been added to the analysis and increased the power of the findings, he said. “We intend to extend our assessment of pulmonary function testing beyond 7 months post-BLVR to evaluate the persistence of improvements in the long term,” he added.

Study Confirms Benefits for Wider Patient Population

“Lung volume reduction is an important intervention in patients with severe emphysema,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, in an interview. Most emphysema is in the upper lobes, but it tends to occur more in the lower lobes in patients with AATD, said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were not especially surprising, but they were reassuring, Dr. Mannino told this news organization. “We know this intervention works in those with severe emphysema,” and it was helpful to confirm similar success in patients with AATD, he said.

The implications for practice are that BLVR is both a safe and an effective intervention for patients with lower or upper lobe emphysema, although longer-term follow-up studies are needed, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of an electronic tool contributed to the deprescribing of unnecessary inhalers in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), based on data from nearly 200 individuals.

Patients with ILD often have symptoms that overlap with those of obstructive airways diseases, Stephanie Nevison, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in a study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

These patients may be started on inhalers to improve their symptoms but with no expected physiologic benefit, and inappropriate use of inhalers may lead to not only unnecessary side effects but also increased health care costs and environmental impact, they noted.

“Our aim was twofold: To quantify the extent of inappropriate inhaler use in patients with ILD and to discontinue them where appropriate,” the researchers wrote.

“We hypothesized that inappropriate inhaler use in ILD is common and that an electronic initiative would improve deprescribing rates,” they said.

The researchers conducted a quality improvement project in an ILD clinic at a single center. They reviewed 5 months of baseline data for 191 patients with ILD to assess baseline frequency of inappropriate inhaler use, defined as one or more of the following criteria: Reported asthma history, smoking history of > 15 pack/years, emphysema on chest CT, patient-reported benefits from therapy, airflow obstruction, or bronchodilator response on spirometry.

A total of 48 patients (25.1%) were on inhalers, and 15 (7.8%) had no indication for them (9% of new referrals and 7% of follow-up patients). The most-prescribed inhalers for patients with no indication were corticosteroids (10 patients), short-acting beta-agonists (8 patients), and long-acting beta-agonists (7 patients).

None of the patients on inhalers received counseling about discontinuing their use. The results of the baseline assessment were shared with clinicians along with education about reducing unnecessary inhaler use in the form of a prompt linked to electronic medical records to discuss deprescription of unnecessary inhalers.

The electronic intervention was applied in 400 of 518 patient encounters, and the researchers reviewed data over another 5-month period. A total of 99 patients were on inhalers, and 3.3% had no indication (5.3% of new referrals and 3.0% of follow-up patients). In the wake of the intervention, “all patients on unnecessary inhalers were counseled on deprescribing, representing a significant increase compared to the preintervention period,” the researchers wrote.
 

Intervention Shows Potential to Curb Unnecessary Inhaler Use

More research is needed as the findings were limited by the relatively small sample size and use of data from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that electronic reminders are effective for prompting a review of inhaler use, and deprescribing inappropriate inhalers for patients with ILD could reduce the potential for adverse events associated with their use, they concluded.

The current study is important because some patients with ILD may not benefit from inhaler use, David Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said in an interview. In the study, “I was a bit surprised that only 3.3% of patients had no indication for them; this seems rather low,” said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

Use of an electronic system that evaluates patients and flags inappropriate therapy is an effective way to decrease overprescribing of medications, Dr. Mannino told this news organization.

As for additional research, application of the tool used in this study to other pulmonary populations could be interesting and potentially useful, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of an electronic tool contributed to the deprescribing of unnecessary inhalers in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), based on data from nearly 200 individuals.

Patients with ILD often have symptoms that overlap with those of obstructive airways diseases, Stephanie Nevison, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in a study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

These patients may be started on inhalers to improve their symptoms but with no expected physiologic benefit, and inappropriate use of inhalers may lead to not only unnecessary side effects but also increased health care costs and environmental impact, they noted.

“Our aim was twofold: To quantify the extent of inappropriate inhaler use in patients with ILD and to discontinue them where appropriate,” the researchers wrote.

“We hypothesized that inappropriate inhaler use in ILD is common and that an electronic initiative would improve deprescribing rates,” they said.

The researchers conducted a quality improvement project in an ILD clinic at a single center. They reviewed 5 months of baseline data for 191 patients with ILD to assess baseline frequency of inappropriate inhaler use, defined as one or more of the following criteria: Reported asthma history, smoking history of > 15 pack/years, emphysema on chest CT, patient-reported benefits from therapy, airflow obstruction, or bronchodilator response on spirometry.

A total of 48 patients (25.1%) were on inhalers, and 15 (7.8%) had no indication for them (9% of new referrals and 7% of follow-up patients). The most-prescribed inhalers for patients with no indication were corticosteroids (10 patients), short-acting beta-agonists (8 patients), and long-acting beta-agonists (7 patients).

None of the patients on inhalers received counseling about discontinuing their use. The results of the baseline assessment were shared with clinicians along with education about reducing unnecessary inhaler use in the form of a prompt linked to electronic medical records to discuss deprescription of unnecessary inhalers.

The electronic intervention was applied in 400 of 518 patient encounters, and the researchers reviewed data over another 5-month period. A total of 99 patients were on inhalers, and 3.3% had no indication (5.3% of new referrals and 3.0% of follow-up patients). In the wake of the intervention, “all patients on unnecessary inhalers were counseled on deprescribing, representing a significant increase compared to the preintervention period,” the researchers wrote.
 

Intervention Shows Potential to Curb Unnecessary Inhaler Use

More research is needed as the findings were limited by the relatively small sample size and use of data from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that electronic reminders are effective for prompting a review of inhaler use, and deprescribing inappropriate inhalers for patients with ILD could reduce the potential for adverse events associated with their use, they concluded.

The current study is important because some patients with ILD may not benefit from inhaler use, David Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said in an interview. In the study, “I was a bit surprised that only 3.3% of patients had no indication for them; this seems rather low,” said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

Use of an electronic system that evaluates patients and flags inappropriate therapy is an effective way to decrease overprescribing of medications, Dr. Mannino told this news organization.

As for additional research, application of the tool used in this study to other pulmonary populations could be interesting and potentially useful, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of an electronic tool contributed to the deprescribing of unnecessary inhalers in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), based on data from nearly 200 individuals.

Patients with ILD often have symptoms that overlap with those of obstructive airways diseases, Stephanie Nevison, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in a study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

These patients may be started on inhalers to improve their symptoms but with no expected physiologic benefit, and inappropriate use of inhalers may lead to not only unnecessary side effects but also increased health care costs and environmental impact, they noted.

“Our aim was twofold: To quantify the extent of inappropriate inhaler use in patients with ILD and to discontinue them where appropriate,” the researchers wrote.

“We hypothesized that inappropriate inhaler use in ILD is common and that an electronic initiative would improve deprescribing rates,” they said.

The researchers conducted a quality improvement project in an ILD clinic at a single center. They reviewed 5 months of baseline data for 191 patients with ILD to assess baseline frequency of inappropriate inhaler use, defined as one or more of the following criteria: Reported asthma history, smoking history of > 15 pack/years, emphysema on chest CT, patient-reported benefits from therapy, airflow obstruction, or bronchodilator response on spirometry.

A total of 48 patients (25.1%) were on inhalers, and 15 (7.8%) had no indication for them (9% of new referrals and 7% of follow-up patients). The most-prescribed inhalers for patients with no indication were corticosteroids (10 patients), short-acting beta-agonists (8 patients), and long-acting beta-agonists (7 patients).

None of the patients on inhalers received counseling about discontinuing their use. The results of the baseline assessment were shared with clinicians along with education about reducing unnecessary inhaler use in the form of a prompt linked to electronic medical records to discuss deprescription of unnecessary inhalers.

The electronic intervention was applied in 400 of 518 patient encounters, and the researchers reviewed data over another 5-month period. A total of 99 patients were on inhalers, and 3.3% had no indication (5.3% of new referrals and 3.0% of follow-up patients). In the wake of the intervention, “all patients on unnecessary inhalers were counseled on deprescribing, representing a significant increase compared to the preintervention period,” the researchers wrote.
 

Intervention Shows Potential to Curb Unnecessary Inhaler Use

More research is needed as the findings were limited by the relatively small sample size and use of data from a single center, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that electronic reminders are effective for prompting a review of inhaler use, and deprescribing inappropriate inhalers for patients with ILD could reduce the potential for adverse events associated with their use, they concluded.

The current study is important because some patients with ILD may not benefit from inhaler use, David Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said in an interview. In the study, “I was a bit surprised that only 3.3% of patients had no indication for them; this seems rather low,” said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

Use of an electronic system that evaluates patients and flags inappropriate therapy is an effective way to decrease overprescribing of medications, Dr. Mannino told this news organization.

As for additional research, application of the tool used in this study to other pulmonary populations could be interesting and potentially useful, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Roughly 30 million to 40 million people in the United States, and nearly a billion people worldwide, have sleep apnea. Because they are cumbersome and often uncomfortable, many sleep apnea patients don’t use their continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine.

“In my patients, I’d say a quarter of them don’t get compliant on the machine and require other treatments,” said David Kuhlmann, MD, medical director of sleep medicine at Bothwell Regional Health Center in Sedalia, MO. That’s often because they “just don’t want to wear a mask at night.”

For Dr. Kuhlmann, who’s also a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, no other treatment can replace something that continually supplies air throughout the night.

But that may be changing.

New Pill Making Waves in Sleep Apnea

Could there be a new approach — a simple pill — that eases sleep apnea symptoms and replaces more conventional treatments?

That’s what researchers at Apnimed hope. Apnimed is a company that’s developed a new oral drug for sleep apnea — currently called AD109. AD109 combines the drugs aroxybutynin and atomoxetine.

Aroxybutynin is used to treat symptoms of an overactive bladder, while atomoxetine is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“The drug is unique in the sense that, currently, there’s no approved drug for the treatment of sleep apnea,” said Douglas Kirsch, MD, medical director of sleep medicine at Atrium Health in Charlotte, NC. “AD109 keeps the airway from collapsing during the night. And that function is through a combination of drugs, which, in theory, both help keep the airway a little bit more open, but also helps keep people asleep.”

AD109 is currently in phase 3 trials, but results are already out for phase 2.

The conclusion of those phase 2 studies?

“AD109 showed clinically meaningful improvement in [sleep apnea], suggesting that further development of the compound is warranted.” That’s taken straight from the study’s published data.

And onto phase 3 clinical trials the drug goes. But there’s something to consider when looking at these results.

Evaluating AD109’s Results

One promising result out of the phase 2 trials was the lack of major side effects in people who took the drug.

“What you are kind of hoping for from a phase 2 trial, both from a set safety perspective and an efficacy perspective, is that it did change the level of sleep apnea when compared to placebo,” said Dr. Kirsch, who’s also a former president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

For phase 2 trials, patients were separated into groups after they were tested to see how severe their sleep apnea was, using the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI).

Dr. Kuhlmann said there are two big things they noticed: The apnea-hypopnea index dropped in patients given two different doses of the drug. Those in the group that took the lower dosage actually saw “clinically significant improvement in fatigue.”

For those with an index score of 10-15 (mild), 77% had their scores lowered to below 10.

But only 42% with a score of 15-30 (moderate) were able to get below 10. And only 7% of those with a score of over 30 were able to get all the way down to 10 or below.

Regarding some of the index score drops, Dr. Kuhlmann said, “If you drop from an AHI of 20-10, that’s still OSA [obstructive sleep apnea] if you have diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, daytime sleepiness, or insomnia.”

Phase 3 should include a broader range of people. “Phase 2 provides a proof of concept…phase 3 is a little bit broader…you can open the use of the drug to more people,” said Dr. Kirsch.

A Suspicious Omission

Significantly, the AD109 phase 2 trial also seemed not to include a crucial thing when sleep experts look at how well treatments work: Oxygen saturation.

“Often, when you review a sleep study with a patient, you’ll talk about both AHI and minimum oxygen saturation,” Dr. Kirsch said.

Dr. Kuhlmann was skeptical of this omission. Instead of reporting the minimum oxygen saturation, Apnimed used something called “hypoxic burden,” he said.

“They didn’t give us oxygen saturation information at all. But there’s a big difference between somebody who has a minimum oxygen saturation of 89% and went from an AHI of 20 to 12…which sounds great…but had minimum oxygen saturation stay the same after.”

In explaining the importance of hypoxic burden, Dr. Kirsch said, “If 99% of a sleep study was at 90% and above, but there was one dip at 80%, that’s not the same as spending 45 minutes below 88%. What you really want to talk about is how much or how long does that oxygen get low?”

What Therapies Must Consider for the Future

Until phase 3 data is out, it’s not possible to say for sure where AD109 can work alone for people across the spectrum of severity.

“Like any form of data, there are going to be targeted populations that may do better…with any drug, you’re unlikely to fix everything…Until we see that phase 3 data…you really can’t say for sure,” Dr. Kirsch said.

“It seems AD109 treats more of a milder spectrum than maybe the ones who would get the most benefit,” Dr. Kuhlmann said.

But he said AD109 may still work well for a number of people. It’s just important to understand that a pill can’t be compared to positive airway pressure.

Dr. Kuhlmann said he’d like to see a medication — including AD109 — that could measure up as well to oral appliances or anything that treats mild to moderate cases and “have some clinical scales associated with it that are positive.”

Besides AD109, Dr. Kirsch said, “I think we are potentially on the precipice of having some drugs that may help with sleep apnea in the coming years.”

Big Need for Progress

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine estimates up to 80% of people with obstructive sleep apnea — the most common form — remain undiagnosed.

Cigarette smoking, high alcohol intake, drugs, or neurological disorders are common risk factors. But most importantly, it’s anything that decreases muscle tone around the upper airway — like obesity — or changes in structural features that narrow the airway.

Dr. Kuhlmann stressed the importance of weight issues linked to sleep apnea. “It’s a very common condition, especially as people are getting older and heavier…you have loss of muscle tone to your entire body, including the upper airway muscles.”
 

SOURCES:

• David Kuhlmann, MD, spokesperson, American Academy of Sleep Medicine; medical director of sleep medicine, Bothwell Regional Health Center, Sedalia, MO.
• Apnimed: “Parallel Arm Trial of AD109 and Placebo With Patients With OSA (LunAIRo),” “Parallel-Arm Study to Compare AD109 to Placebo With Patients With OSA (SynAIRgy Study).”
• Douglas Kirsch, MD, former president, American Academy of Sleep Medicine; medical director of sleep medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.
• American Academy of Sleep Medicine: “Rising Prevalence of Sleep Apnea in US Threatens Public Health.”
• National Council on Aging: “Sleep Apnea Statistics and Facts You Should Know.”

This article originally appeared on WebMD.

Roughly 30 million to 40 million people in the United States, and nearly a billion people worldwide, have sleep apnea. Because they are cumbersome and often uncomfortable, many sleep apnea patients don’t use their continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine.

“In my patients, I’d say a quarter of them don’t get compliant on the machine and require other treatments,” said David Kuhlmann, MD, medical director of sleep medicine at Bothwell Regional Health Center in Sedalia, MO. That’s often because they “just don’t want to wear a mask at night.”

For Dr. Kuhlmann, who’s also a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, no other treatment can replace something that continually supplies air throughout the night.

But that may be changing.

New Pill Making Waves in Sleep Apnea

Could there be a new approach — a simple pill — that eases sleep apnea symptoms and replaces more conventional treatments?

That’s what researchers at Apnimed hope. Apnimed is a company that’s developed a new oral drug for sleep apnea — currently called AD109. AD109 combines the drugs aroxybutynin and atomoxetine.

Aroxybutynin is used to treat symptoms of an overactive bladder, while atomoxetine is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“The drug is unique in the sense that, currently, there’s no approved drug for the treatment of sleep apnea,” said Douglas Kirsch, MD, medical director of sleep medicine at Atrium Health in Charlotte, NC. “AD109 keeps the airway from collapsing during the night. And that function is through a combination of drugs, which, in theory, both help keep the airway a little bit more open, but also helps keep people asleep.”

AD109 is currently in phase 3 trials, but results are already out for phase 2.

The conclusion of those phase 2 studies?

“AD109 showed clinically meaningful improvement in [sleep apnea], suggesting that further development of the compound is warranted.” That’s taken straight from the study’s published data.

And onto phase 3 clinical trials the drug goes. But there’s something to consider when looking at these results.

Evaluating AD109’s Results

One promising result out of the phase 2 trials was the lack of major side effects in people who took the drug.

“What you are kind of hoping for from a phase 2 trial, both from a set safety perspective and an efficacy perspective, is that it did change the level of sleep apnea when compared to placebo,” said Dr. Kirsch, who’s also a former president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

For phase 2 trials, patients were separated into groups after they were tested to see how severe their sleep apnea was, using the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI).

Dr. Kuhlmann said there are two big things they noticed: The apnea-hypopnea index dropped in patients given two different doses of the drug. Those in the group that took the lower dosage actually saw “clinically significant improvement in fatigue.”

For those with an index score of 10-15 (mild), 77% had their scores lowered to below 10.

But only 42% with a score of 15-30 (moderate) were able to get below 10. And only 7% of those with a score of over 30 were able to get all the way down to 10 or below.

Regarding some of the index score drops, Dr. Kuhlmann said, “If you drop from an AHI of 20-10, that’s still OSA [obstructive sleep apnea] if you have diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, daytime sleepiness, or insomnia.”

Phase 3 should include a broader range of people. “Phase 2 provides a proof of concept…phase 3 is a little bit broader…you can open the use of the drug to more people,” said Dr. Kirsch.

A Suspicious Omission

Significantly, the AD109 phase 2 trial also seemed not to include a crucial thing when sleep experts look at how well treatments work: Oxygen saturation.

“Often, when you review a sleep study with a patient, you’ll talk about both AHI and minimum oxygen saturation,” Dr. Kirsch said.

Dr. Kuhlmann was skeptical of this omission. Instead of reporting the minimum oxygen saturation, Apnimed used something called “hypoxic burden,” he said.

“They didn’t give us oxygen saturation information at all. But there’s a big difference between somebody who has a minimum oxygen saturation of 89% and went from an AHI of 20 to 12…which sounds great…but had minimum oxygen saturation stay the same after.”

In explaining the importance of hypoxic burden, Dr. Kirsch said, “If 99% of a sleep study was at 90% and above, but there was one dip at 80%, that’s not the same as spending 45 minutes below 88%. What you really want to talk about is how much or how long does that oxygen get low?”

What Therapies Must Consider for the Future

Until phase 3 data is out, it’s not possible to say for sure where AD109 can work alone for people across the spectrum of severity.

“Like any form of data, there are going to be targeted populations that may do better…with any drug, you’re unlikely to fix everything…Until we see that phase 3 data…you really can’t say for sure,” Dr. Kirsch said.

“It seems AD109 treats more of a milder spectrum than maybe the ones who would get the most benefit,” Dr. Kuhlmann said.

But he said AD109 may still work well for a number of people. It’s just important to understand that a pill can’t be compared to positive airway pressure.

Dr. Kuhlmann said he’d like to see a medication — including AD109 — that could measure up as well to oral appliances or anything that treats mild to moderate cases and “have some clinical scales associated with it that are positive.”

Besides AD109, Dr. Kirsch said, “I think we are potentially on the precipice of having some drugs that may help with sleep apnea in the coming years.”

Big Need for Progress

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine estimates up to 80% of people with obstructive sleep apnea — the most common form — remain undiagnosed.

Cigarette smoking, high alcohol intake, drugs, or neurological disorders are common risk factors. But most importantly, it’s anything that decreases muscle tone around the upper airway — like obesity — or changes in structural features that narrow the airway.

Dr. Kuhlmann stressed the importance of weight issues linked to sleep apnea. “It’s a very common condition, especially as people are getting older and heavier…you have loss of muscle tone to your entire body, including the upper airway muscles.”
 

SOURCES:

• David Kuhlmann, MD, spokesperson, American Academy of Sleep Medicine; medical director of sleep medicine, Bothwell Regional Health Center, Sedalia, MO.
• Apnimed: “Parallel Arm Trial of AD109 and Placebo With Patients With OSA (LunAIRo),” “Parallel-Arm Study to Compare AD109 to Placebo With Patients With OSA (SynAIRgy Study).”
• Douglas Kirsch, MD, former president, American Academy of Sleep Medicine; medical director of sleep medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.
• American Academy of Sleep Medicine: “Rising Prevalence of Sleep Apnea in US Threatens Public Health.”
• National Council on Aging: “Sleep Apnea Statistics and Facts You Should Know.”

This article originally appeared on WebMD.

Roughly 30 million to 40 million people in the United States, and nearly a billion people worldwide, have sleep apnea. Because they are cumbersome and often uncomfortable, many sleep apnea patients don’t use their continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine.

“In my patients, I’d say a quarter of them don’t get compliant on the machine and require other treatments,” said David Kuhlmann, MD, medical director of sleep medicine at Bothwell Regional Health Center in Sedalia, MO. That’s often because they “just don’t want to wear a mask at night.”

For Dr. Kuhlmann, who’s also a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, no other treatment can replace something that continually supplies air throughout the night.

But that may be changing.

New Pill Making Waves in Sleep Apnea

Could there be a new approach — a simple pill — that eases sleep apnea symptoms and replaces more conventional treatments?

That’s what researchers at Apnimed hope. Apnimed is a company that’s developed a new oral drug for sleep apnea — currently called AD109. AD109 combines the drugs aroxybutynin and atomoxetine.

Aroxybutynin is used to treat symptoms of an overactive bladder, while atomoxetine is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“The drug is unique in the sense that, currently, there’s no approved drug for the treatment of sleep apnea,” said Douglas Kirsch, MD, medical director of sleep medicine at Atrium Health in Charlotte, NC. “AD109 keeps the airway from collapsing during the night. And that function is through a combination of drugs, which, in theory, both help keep the airway a little bit more open, but also helps keep people asleep.”

AD109 is currently in phase 3 trials, but results are already out for phase 2.

The conclusion of those phase 2 studies?

“AD109 showed clinically meaningful improvement in [sleep apnea], suggesting that further development of the compound is warranted.” That’s taken straight from the study’s published data.

And onto phase 3 clinical trials the drug goes. But there’s something to consider when looking at these results.

Evaluating AD109’s Results

One promising result out of the phase 2 trials was the lack of major side effects in people who took the drug.

“What you are kind of hoping for from a phase 2 trial, both from a set safety perspective and an efficacy perspective, is that it did change the level of sleep apnea when compared to placebo,” said Dr. Kirsch, who’s also a former president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

For phase 2 trials, patients were separated into groups after they were tested to see how severe their sleep apnea was, using the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI).

Dr. Kuhlmann said there are two big things they noticed: The apnea-hypopnea index dropped in patients given two different doses of the drug. Those in the group that took the lower dosage actually saw “clinically significant improvement in fatigue.”

For those with an index score of 10-15 (mild), 77% had their scores lowered to below 10.

But only 42% with a score of 15-30 (moderate) were able to get below 10. And only 7% of those with a score of over 30 were able to get all the way down to 10 or below.

Regarding some of the index score drops, Dr. Kuhlmann said, “If you drop from an AHI of 20-10, that’s still OSA [obstructive sleep apnea] if you have diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, daytime sleepiness, or insomnia.”

Phase 3 should include a broader range of people. “Phase 2 provides a proof of concept…phase 3 is a little bit broader…you can open the use of the drug to more people,” said Dr. Kirsch.

A Suspicious Omission

Significantly, the AD109 phase 2 trial also seemed not to include a crucial thing when sleep experts look at how well treatments work: Oxygen saturation.

“Often, when you review a sleep study with a patient, you’ll talk about both AHI and minimum oxygen saturation,” Dr. Kirsch said.

Dr. Kuhlmann was skeptical of this omission. Instead of reporting the minimum oxygen saturation, Apnimed used something called “hypoxic burden,” he said.

“They didn’t give us oxygen saturation information at all. But there’s a big difference between somebody who has a minimum oxygen saturation of 89% and went from an AHI of 20 to 12…which sounds great…but had minimum oxygen saturation stay the same after.”

In explaining the importance of hypoxic burden, Dr. Kirsch said, “If 99% of a sleep study was at 90% and above, but there was one dip at 80%, that’s not the same as spending 45 minutes below 88%. What you really want to talk about is how much or how long does that oxygen get low?”

What Therapies Must Consider for the Future

Until phase 3 data is out, it’s not possible to say for sure where AD109 can work alone for people across the spectrum of severity.

“Like any form of data, there are going to be targeted populations that may do better…with any drug, you’re unlikely to fix everything…Until we see that phase 3 data…you really can’t say for sure,” Dr. Kirsch said.

“It seems AD109 treats more of a milder spectrum than maybe the ones who would get the most benefit,” Dr. Kuhlmann said.

But he said AD109 may still work well for a number of people. It’s just important to understand that a pill can’t be compared to positive airway pressure.

Dr. Kuhlmann said he’d like to see a medication — including AD109 — that could measure up as well to oral appliances or anything that treats mild to moderate cases and “have some clinical scales associated with it that are positive.”

Besides AD109, Dr. Kirsch said, “I think we are potentially on the precipice of having some drugs that may help with sleep apnea in the coming years.”

Big Need for Progress

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine estimates up to 80% of people with obstructive sleep apnea — the most common form — remain undiagnosed.

Cigarette smoking, high alcohol intake, drugs, or neurological disorders are common risk factors. But most importantly, it’s anything that decreases muscle tone around the upper airway — like obesity — or changes in structural features that narrow the airway.

Dr. Kuhlmann stressed the importance of weight issues linked to sleep apnea. “It’s a very common condition, especially as people are getting older and heavier…you have loss of muscle tone to your entire body, including the upper airway muscles.”
 

SOURCES:

• David Kuhlmann, MD, spokesperson, American Academy of Sleep Medicine; medical director of sleep medicine, Bothwell Regional Health Center, Sedalia, MO.
• Apnimed: “Parallel Arm Trial of AD109 and Placebo With Patients With OSA (LunAIRo),” “Parallel-Arm Study to Compare AD109 to Placebo With Patients With OSA (SynAIRgy Study).”
• Douglas Kirsch, MD, former president, American Academy of Sleep Medicine; medical director of sleep medicine, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC.
• American Academy of Sleep Medicine: “Rising Prevalence of Sleep Apnea in US Threatens Public Health.”
• National Council on Aging: “Sleep Apnea Statistics and Facts You Should Know.”

This article originally appeared on WebMD.

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.